Fire Safety In Hospitals

[nearlythere]

Just got a reply this morning from an AI as I asked if he was happy to accept a 35m dead end across the atrium in a three storey school based on a fire strategy that had absolutely no detail but mentions that there is an option to install a natural ventilation system. The answer he gave was that the strategy was "over and above his knowledge of fire engineering" but that he found "no reason not to accept the fire strategy".

I'm going to join the other mobs being discussed in the other thread and just get a tick box report system, a bag full of 'fire door keep shut' stickers and the number of a disreputable fire alarm company who will pay me 20% commission for recommending full FDA in 3 storey blocks of PB flats when I've already charged them ?150 for 10 minutes work. I've had enough of trying to be professional as it just gives me stress.

Golden. You haven't mentioned the deadly "Failure to empty the cigarette butt bucket every day" significant finding.

[Golden]

AI confirmed today that he will be issuing a final certificate despite confirming two days ago that he has little knowledge of the fire engineering included in the design. He has also confirmed that the design meets B1-B5  - which is absolutely impossible as some idiot has built this thing in an internal courtyard therefore there is absolutely no fire service access to the exterior. No details of the natural ventilation system but someone on site did tell me there is a 1m2 vent at the head of the stairs but doesn't think there is anything at the head of the atrium; fire strategy document is full of cut and paste from regs, 9999 and 7974 but very little detail. I despair.

[wee brian]

Report the AI to the CIC AI Register.

[colin todd]

... and watch him be bitten by bare gums.

[Mike Buckley]

and he could get a nasty suck!

[Golden]

Either way its not going to happen as Colin points out there is zero chance of any positive outcome therefore would be a waste of time and effort. I'm all for properly engineered solutions but it just appears to me that anything goes these days without any scrutiny of the details. I'll conduct a FRA when it gets around to it and put lots of onerous conditions on the school in order to manage the situation but I believe a building should be fit for purpose and flexible for the user - not come with a raft of restrictions.

[wee brian]

moan moan blah blah - but can't be botthered to make a formal report.... same ol same ol....

[kurnal]

I don't think it's as simple as that Wee Brian.
Whose place is it to make such a report? Is it down to a fire consultant?

I would have thought that the complaint should be made by the client and that the consultant might have a hard job persuading them to do so as it will both delay the project and cost him some money if upheld? Clients tend to want the easiest way out in my experience and if the AI will say it's ok (because they daren't say anything else for fear of losing the next job from the developer) and are prepared to cover it with their insurance then any dissenting voices can go hang even if they are right and the design is a travesty.  
 
I would love to give you some real life case studies  but not here- a public forum is not the place. The bottom line is who does the client listen to? Why should they listen to bad news from me when as a fire risk assessor I am  brought in at the end of the project when someone else has rubber stamped it? I can be successful in getting some simple things fixed like dodgy fire stopping or poorly fitted doors but things like missing compartment walls, crass configuration of fire alarms, stupid  unsafe layouts and dodgy fire engineered solutions are a non starter for change. That's the reality in my experience.

[Golden]

Wee Brian Thanks for your contribution. I've already spent many hours/days writing and talking to my client about this issue, talking to the local authority fire officer (initially consulted and made some reasonable comment but has since back pedalled rapidly and now has washed his hands), writing to the AI, etc. - and as Kurnal has pointed out it isn't as simple as that. There is no way we would get any positive result - the reason I blah blah on here is to try and get some decent feedback.

Unfortunately I work for a client who is taking over the school, they have had no input on the design and currently have not taken ownership of the extension due to the many issues involved partly due to my inputs - technically at this time they have no contract with the AI or the developer so we couldn't report to the CIC even if we wanted to. Should they take over the extension I will still not waste my time as our contract won't be with the AI but with the city council who can't wait to get rid of the place - hopefully my clients will refuse to accept the new build and lumber the local tax payer with a ?2 million white elephant but I doubt that will happen and we'll unfortunately accept the risk. Its not the first time but once again our hands are tied.

[wee brian]

I hear what you are saying, but if people don't make formal complaints then there's no evidence of a problem.

[kurnal]

Or perhaps the CIC registration system is insufficiently robust or comprehensive. Two audits every 5 years is hardly onerous?

[wee brian]

They never get any complaints so it must be working fine............

[Fishy]

Had a look at the CIC website and it looks like the users/occupiers can complain even if they didn't contract the AI (though they do have to complain to the AI first).  I have worked as an asset 'custodian' in the past & I would certainly have no hesitation about complaining if I thought that an AI's decision had compromised my ability to manage my premises efficiently (e.g. if my FRA concluded that the brand-new building fell short in fire safety terms).