Assistance please? It seems that carrying out a fire risk assessment is becoming more and more confrontational with the local authority especially if the client has asked for the fire risk assessment following a fire service audit. I have just dealt with a small hotel with a single staircase. In the RRO sleeping accommodation guidance reference is made to a single staircase premises with ground and up to 3 floors. This one has ground and four floors, there is lobby protection at all levels including the top floor. There is an L1 fire alarm system. The premises are staffed 24 hours and have recently had fire safety training, they have a facilities manager and are keen to comply with necessary requirements. However, until an AOV system has been installed the local Fire authority officer has instructed the client not to use the top floor. Personally I think this is a little excessive (remember the ethos of the RRO not to be a burden on business’!) Back in 2000 under the old fire certificate conditions they were inspected, and regarding the fourth floor were given a ‘conditions relaxed’ stamp on the fire certificate providing the lobby protection had been upgraded, which it was. I spoke to the fire officer concerned, and his view was that since the RRO things have changed and they've had a good run and the AOV should have been done since 1 October 2006, those of you who have had the pleasure of attending any of a certain well-known provider of fire risk assessment courses (and regular and entertaining contributer to this site) may have noticed a brilliant slide on their presentation it reads: ‘The behaviour of fire in buildings did not change on first of October 2006’ and ‘ the behaviour of people in fire did not change on 1 October 2006’ I have recommended in the FRA that a simple ventilation system is provided but not as an immediate action plan item, there are means of venting the top of the staircase in an operational sense if push came to shove, but considering that the lobby protection should prevent smoke entering the staircase in the first place, early warning, trained staff and good management does anyone agree (or otherwise) that to deny the client the revenue of four rooms every day is over cautious?
And here is my main point: I thought a FRA was supposed to be a subjective approach? Remember ‘reasonable’ and ‘where necessary’ You could have another FO who agrees with me, another one who partly agrees, you could get six of us in a room say 3 serving fire safety officers and 3 fire risk assessors all looking at a floor plan and open warfare ensues! This challenging routine seems to have picked up in the last couple of years, is it that fire safety officers don’t have the experience they used to have and play safe by code hugging? But at the end of the day it’s the auditing/enforcing officer who has the whip hand every time, the client doesn’t want to have any hassle with the local authority so unless you have the time (and energy) one is left having to concede defeat or taking them to task through the legal process, is that what we have to do nowadays?
