Assessing occupancy numbers

[lyledunn]

I refer only to existing public bars and social clubs. Floor space factor of 0.5m2 often leads to a much higher occupancy than say counting numbers from arrangements of fixed seating and loose tables and chairs. I appreciate the benefit of a safety margin but take a wee bar in a village belonging to a friend of mine, built before exit width was a determining factor, door width 750mm so less than the minimum but adequate from a common sense perspective and probably even satisfactory when modelled. Now the floor space factor leads to 300 persons in his lounge. Exit capacity falls short, although not by much. He has never had more than 120 in the lounge. If one counts the numbers from fixed seating etc one arrives at circa 120. He is happy with restricting numbers but his application for an entertainment licence requires him to have exit capacity for the larger figure of 300. This will mean some serious alterations. He has a detailed FRA which acknowledges the inadequacy for 300 but accepts that existing measures are satisfactory for the lesser figure of 120 providing, of course, numbers are indeed controlled.
May I ask you if it is reasonable or common  to make an assessment of occupancy in such places based on seating layout and if it is reasonable to rely on a maximum figure derived from this being properly managed?

[Tom Sutton]

Check out appendix C of ADB page 135. Check, table C1, item 1 and 4, item 2 may not apply and check note 1. The exit width may be satisfactory.

[Phoenix]

Hi Lyle,

It is very common in England and Wales to limit numbers to what the exits can accommodate in preference to increasing the exit provision to meet what the premises can potentially hold at maximum occupancy.  If this were not the case there would be thousands of premises that would need to fit additional exits. 

If we went along the lines of increasing the exit capacity to what the premises can hold in every case then we would run into all sorts of problems in trying to make a judgement on the maximum potential occupancy.  There are many places where 0.25 sq. m/person would not be unreasonable on a busy Friday night and many other places where there are a lot of fixed seating areas that limit occupancy, so how would we make a judgement on what would be the right occupancy factor for each premises?  Not easy.

The fire strategy or the fire risk assessment (in the absence of a strategy) should stipulate the maximum number of occupants, based on exit capacity, and the responsible person should stick to this.  If this is done in line with the applicable guidance then how could anyone ever claim that conditions were unsafe (barring all other factors, of course). 

If an enforcing authority tried to prosecute on the basis that a premises could potentially hold more people than the exits could accommodate but that it never did, then it would be laughed out of court.  No one has been put at any risk.

Having said all that there are times when a judgement about the management of a premises leads one to think that there may be times when the occupancy level exceeds the capacity of the exits.  In such cases it is not unreasonable for the enforcing authority to insist on additional exits.

The responsible person has to be absolutely honest with you and tell you what the absolute maximum occupancy is. 

I understand that this case concerns the application for an entertainments licence and in such cases the situation is not easy as it involves trying to convince someone, who often knows very little about fire safety, how the required level of safety will be met.  This person may have some guidance that they interpret as a set of absolute rules.  They can be convinced but it requires a rigorous set of compensatory measures that goes far beyond merely making a statement that the numbers will be kept down to some pre-determined safe level.  For example, details will have to be given on how the people will be counted, how records will be kept continuously updated, who will be responsible, how it will be assured that during a busy night this person will still have time to continue checking that numbers are kept within the limit.  And so on.

Good luck.

   

[Dinnertime Dave]

I assume this is in NI, so as Phoenix says good luck.

[lyledunn]

As always Phoenix, thank you for such a well structured response. The officer tells me that they use Technical Booklet E (the equivalent of ADB) as a strict guideline for a grant of a licence, which this is because the licence was not renewed in time. Renewals are treated with a degree of flexibility. I guess that is a reasonable stance.

[Phoenix]

The licensing authority have to feel confident that the numbers will not exceed a safe level.  They can get this confidence by doggedly adhering to their guidelines but there is a chance that a comprehensive fire risk assessment (or fire strategy) document, detailing precisely how the numbers will be effectively limited at all times and also covering all other aspects of fire safety, including stipulated regular review periods, should give them sufficient confidence to accept the measures laid out in the FRA (strategy) and the limiting of numbers to within the capacity of the existing exits.

I sometimes understand their reticence to deviate from guidance as I am aware that they have in mind how the premises will be managed five years or more down the line.  I think this reticence can be countered by the suggested regular review period.

[kurnal]

So the fact that the licence application renewal was delayed means the premises are no longer considered safe from fire unless improvements are made to the means of escape, though they have been considered safe previously.  Well if thats logic it defeats me to see it. Bit like a statutory bar being applied provided you renew in time.

I wonder if the fire would understand the difference and burn more fiercely as a result of the late application?

I thought risk assessment was supposed to rule?

[Tom Sutton]

I believe the table in ADB and TBE give the flexibility, under functional requirements and would allow a maximum numbers based on the availability of exit width, but how do you monitor it? Most occupancies would be reasonably simple to achieve by good management, but public houses are another matter, especially at Christmas, New Year time and match days for instance. I would imagine the licencing authorities would want the maximum numbers based on the numbers that could occupy the premises with no control. This could be the reason why they use the occupancy factors instead of allowing flexibility and even so, at the times I indicated above, the maximum number could easily be exceeded.

[Golden]

I occasionally discuss such matters with a friend of mine who is a senior licensing officer for a London borough when we stand in the pub after football matches with about 4-600 people in the pub/garden with one single inward opening door and a locked gate in the garden.

There is little risk in a modern pub during opening hours and providing it is ground floor only and doors are direct to open air then some leeway should be given. The local licensing officer should also look at the anticipated numbers in the bar and have some appreciation of the management in restricting numbers - many licensees would be delighted to get 3 people per m2 these days.

[Tom Sutton]

Golden would you say the same if things had gone pear shaped and you where in the witness box or even the dock. Also how does the management restrict numbers if he doesn't use door staff, which most don't.

[Golden]

Yes. I often drink in the older establishments that weren't built to today's standards but most have been operating as pubs for 100 years or more; the risk has been reduced over the years such as the smoking ban and only a few have open fires. Most have plain walls with class O finishes, furnishings tend to be robust and difficult to ignite and sight lines across the pubs are mainly good as the management need to know what is going on - and restrict numbers if necessary even without door staff. Most of the people in the bar are armed with crude fire extinguishing apparatus in case anything does happen to catch alight. I can promise you know that I will never be in the dock for a fire in a pub while its open that has caused any injury unless maybe its clothing catching fire; biggest risk is at Christmas when people who don't normally drink go out to heavily decorated pubs and get smashed to celebrate the birth of the baby Jesus.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Golden, some quick research reveals that in the 10 years there have been 5,643 fires in restaurants, cafes, pubs, etc. resulting in 305 casualties, including 5 fatalities

http://www.cfoa.org.uk/18562

[Golden]

It doesn't say whether or not they were open at the time and where the casualties occurred though - if you can do some further quick research and whittle this down to pubs please, when they are open for business and with the fire in the bar area it would be more useful. 

So in the whole of the UK there have been 30 casualties a year in all of those type of premises (including a large number that cook on the premises which is allegedly a high risk activity) - they sound quite safe to me given the number of such premises in the UK.

How many were open at the time of the fire?
were any of the casualties customers?
Were any of these in pubs - whether or not the exits were wide enough to cope with the occupancy?
How many were arson?
Etc, Etc.

[G. N. Hamilton]

The pub/entertainment business involves a fickle crowd. A change of owner/manager or approach could easily lead to an increase in patrons within the lounge.....whos to know. What is known is the maximum design occupancy of the room, above this patrons would self regulate. i.e. leave the bar as its too crowded and impossible to be served at the bar.

Inadequate exit capacity may not in itself cause a fire tragedy but it would be a contributing factor. A factor that should be removed at licensing stage with inspection by the competent authorities. I have attended appeals in Court on this basis and have always been successful.

My advice would be to widen the exits or make the room smaller (the latter being a seldom used solution)

[kml]

Lyle,

if you get a copy of the all new DHSSPS Fire Safety Risk Assessment for Small and Medium Places Of Assembly (Free download from NIFRS website) which is largely a cut and paste from the DCLG Guide it states that "a width of 750 mm can accommodate up to 80 people in higher risk premises, 100 people in normal risk premises or 120 people in lower risk premises (page 80) . A lot more than good old bs5588 pt 6 or 9999 or TBe. I am assuming that there is more than one door from the premises otherwise you are back down to 60. See also the paragraph about wheelchair users to further confuse the issue (same page). As you are probably aware the council licensing officers have taken over the auditing of licensed premises, but if they are using TBe the table giving floor space factors has a note attached stating that "occupant capacity may be taken as the number of fixed seats provided if the occupants will normally be seated. "