over provision of Fire extinguishers.

[William 29]

Just to add to the debate, we conducted an assessment of a gym recently that had no extinguishers installed.  We recommended a total of 6 extinguishers, 2 to cover the front and rear exits and 2 on a large gallery/floor with seating, coffee and drinks machine and portable gas heater.  The assessment is based on the BS for floor area, the risk presented and common sense, for example there are sun beds in the changing rooms and you could try to sell a CO2 in both rooms to cover the electrical risk but we felt that over the top given the extinguishers near the front exit (6ltr AFFF and CO2) are in close proximity to the sun bed rooms.

Anyway, fire officer (ops crew) turns up and says they don't need the 2 extinguishers on the gallery in fact just the 2 at the front would be fine!  The client calls and says don't provide the extinguishers on the gallery as the FSO says they are not needed.

I do get very frustrated when they "reject" assessments for the slightest of detail and then in the same breath contradict an assessment for going over the top.  
 

[nearlythere]

Slightly similar situation I had with BC. New two storey bowling club built and secretary asked me to carry out a FRA. BC carried out final inspection and certified building as completed. BC guy then told secretary that the building was fine and he could do his own Assessment on one side of a A4 page.

I was told by secretary that my services were not required.

[AnthonyB]

Two of my pet hates - Op crews pretending to be fire safety experts and BCO's!

Whilst I am not for over provision, nor am I for clear under provision either...

If these parties would be held to account for their failings perhaps things will improve, but they get away with it time and time again.

I once had to cross swords with a BCO as they had placed an outdated and unrealistic extinguisher requirement on a client's rebuild, my first point being where on earth does Buliding Regulations mention extinguishers, it's not their jurisdiction. The client commissioned and paid for a detailed survey and risk assessment, but gave in as they had no stomach for an argument as they had tenants already waiting to move in.

[William 29]

Two of my pet hates - Op crews pretending to be fire safety experts and BCO's!

Whilst I am not for over provision, nor am I for clear under provision either...

If these parties would be held to account for their failings perhaps things will improve, but they get away with it time and time again.

I once had to cross swords with a BCO as they had placed an outdated and unrealistic extinguisher requirement on a client's rebuild, my first point being where on earth does Buliding Regulations mention extinguishers, it's not their jurisdiction. The client commissioned and paid for a detailed survey and risk assessment, but gave in as they had no stomach for an argument as they had tenants already waiting to move in.

When this type of thing comes up where we have done an FRA and the FSO relaxes a recommendation or states that a fire safety provision is not required I simply state this clearly in the FRA.  I had a similar situation in a warehouse where we recommemded as a minimum a manual 5839 part 1 fire alarm system, again not over the top but the inspecting FSO stated stand alone single point call points would save them money and thats what they went for.  I explained that the call points would not be linked and given the size of the premises would not be adequate in my view but they went with the advice of the FSO.

[tmprojects]

Two of my pet hates - Op crews pretending to be fire safety experts and BCO's!

Whilst I am not for over provision, nor am I for clear under provision either...

If these parties would be held to account for their failings perhaps things will improve, but they get away with it time and time again.

I once had to cross swords with a BCO as they had placed an outdated and unrealistic extinguisher requirement on a client's rebuild, my first point being where on earth does Buliding Regulations mention extinguishers, it's not their jurisdiction. The client commissioned and paid for a detailed survey and risk assessment, but gave in as they had no stomach for an argument as they had tenants already waiting to move in.

When this type of thing comes up where we have done an FRA and the FSO relaxes a recommendation or states that a fire safety provision is not required I simply state this clearly in the FRA.  I had a similar situation in a warehouse where we recommemded as a minimum a manual 5839 part 1 fire alarm system, again not over the top but the inspecting FSO stated stand alone single point call points would save them money and thats what they went for.  I explained that the call points would not be linked and given the size of the premises would not be adequate in my view but they went with the advice of the FSO.

To this and to anthonyb's point I would say this. (Forgive my rose tinted glasses)

Challenge it! Even if the client doesn't want to or can't be bothered. I would.

We all know ops crew are like bulls in a china shop. And that brigades put their staff in the posts of inspectors with wholly inadequate training and most end up learning on-the-job.

Because of this mistakes will be made.

I would write to the brigade. Detailing my concerns regarding their judgement and ask them to explain and justify their reasons for contradicting my recommendations. I would then present my argument as to the reasons for the fire safety arrangements I specified.

Even if you have already lost the client. You would have redress for the future. And would maintain your professional integrity.