Escape over flat roof from bar

[lyledunn]

We have a situation in parts of NI where, perhaps like other parts of the U.K.,external smoking shelters of pubs have developed in to quite nice alfresco seating areas where patrons can take their pint and have a smoke. Some of these areas have been developed immediately outside a first floor final emergency exit and have been promoted as "beer gardens". Now the police have come down hard on pub landlords and have insisted that the areas should be licensed. This requires application to a court and proof that the said area is safe and suitable. This is normally done through presentation of building control certificates and the like. However, no such certificates are available for external areas.
Effectively what we have is a lounge on a flat roof that is part of the first floor escape route. This would seem to contravene 4.31 of ADB (TBE here). I can guess at the concern but can someone tell me for sure?

[Phoenix]

Hi Lyle, could you just describe the situation a little clearer.  If the area is outside a "final emergency exit" then it must be en route to (or actually in) a place of safety.  If, on the other hand, the area is outside a first floor door, on a roof that has no escape route other than re-entering the building, then the area may be equivalent to an inner room.  If it is something else then it is something else.  You can quote me on that last point.

If NI is the same as the rest of the UK, changing the area to a drinking area is a material alteration under the Building Regs (NI equivalent) so should be subject to an application.  If it is on a first floor roof there could be all sorts of other considerations that may have to be catered for under the Technical Bulletins.

[lyledunn]

Thank you for the reply Phoenix. For clarity one typical example; a first floor emergency exit spills on to a flat roof which is completely in open air. The route traverses the flat roof, down steel stairs to a perimeter yard gate fitted with EOD. Because of the smoking ban, pub owner develops the area on the flat roof to provide a convenient area for smokers. He places fixed seating and tables such that there is no impediment in the exit route. Punters bring their pint with them and before you know it the area becomes a pleasant beer garden which can accommodate circa 100. A fire situation in the pub would require these people to move quickly off the flat roof in the direction of the yard gate otherwise there would be delay for those exiting from the pub on to the flat roof. Contra flow might also be a serious concern. I was wondering if that was the concern implicit in ADB 4.31?

[Phoenix]

The first sentence of 4.31 (1.65) is only applicable if the stairs are a place of relative safety.  Stairs are only a place of relative safety if they are either enclosed in FR or, if they are external, protected by fire resistance as shown in Diagram 25 in ADB (1.11 in TBE, I believe).  How applicable this is to your scenario is for you to assess.  The following questions are the sort of questions that would be going through my tiny tiny mind:

I wonder how the external route was intended to be used before this change.  Was it for many people or was it for a few staff members only?
Is it suitable for the number of members of the public who may need to use it now?
How is it protected from the weather?  Will it be required in bad weather?
Is it, and should it be, protected by fire resistance on the external envelope of the building?
If a fire started inside the building could people escape safely wherever the fire was located?
Is the surface suitable?  Non-slip? Liable to puddling?
Could the external stairs be used by people in high heels?
Is there adequate normal and emergency lighting?
Is the area guarded suitably?
Escape routes across roofs are meant to be fire resisting for up to 3m either side of the route so if a fire starts below the route remains useable.  Is this the case?  Or is there sufficient atuomatic fire detection to allow this recommendation to be reduced?
Is the evacuation signal suitably audible on the roof?
Does CCTV cover the roof?
Is the area supervised by staff?
Is the roof structurally capable of supporting the additional load?
Does the increased capacity of the establishment require other additional facilities (e.g. WCs)?
Is the area licensed for the consumption of alcohol?
Have Building Regulations been complied with?

[lyledunn]

Thank you for such a comprehensive response Phoenix.
The regulation to which I refer in ADB is 4.31 which says; ESCAPE OVER FLAT ROOFS; If more than one escape route is available from a storey or part of a building, one of these routes may be by way of a flat roof, provided that;
A. The route does not serve an institutional building or part of a building intended for use by members of the public and
B. It meets the provisions in paragraph 6.35

The provisions of paragraph 6.35 are met, or can be met but my concern is that the statement in A above effectively prohibits the use of the route by members of the public. These premises obviously cater for members of the public and thus compliance with Building Regulations would not be met. Am I reading this right? The court would not consider granting an intoxicating liquor licence to an area that does not comply with Building Regulations.

[Phoenix]

Ok.  That's not 4.31 in my version...

[Phoenix]

Definitely not, to your last sentence.  But remember that it is not essential to follow the guidance to comply with the Building Regulations.  If your risk assessment considers this use safe then you may deem it to comply with the Building Regulations.  You will have to convince the BCO and the Courts but you should be able to do that if you can convince yourself first.

[kurnal]

Phoenix's list is comprehensive and an excellent tool to evaluate the proposal.
But I think Lyle is worrying too much, there are many thousands of outdoor drinking terraces on upper levels in existing premises - pubs, clubs and restaurants that have been licenced and approved and provide a pleasant and safe environment. The only things  I would add to Phoenix' list are the alarm provision and the fire emergency plan to ensure the route is stewarded to prevent persons moving back into the building, do not obstruct the route from the building and that they disperse from the terrace to a safe area.

[lyledunn]

Thank you so much guys. your thoughts on the matter have been very useful. The venue I described in this thread is fairly typical of a beer garden on an upper level. This one could have over 100 persons and if an alarm was actuated I doubt whether a bouncer, let alone a wee girl in a white apron could prevent folk from battling their way back in to the building especially if they have family or friends in the ground floor lounge areas. I need to factor this in as it would obviously cause a delay in evacuation should the premises be at full capacity.
Do you think that it would be unreasonable to suggest that the extra capacity generated by the availability of the beer garden should be subtracted from the maximum occupancy of the pub given that the only way in to the beer garden is from inside the pub?

[kurnal]

Do you think that it would be unreasonable to suggest that the extra capacity generated by the availability of the beer garden should be subtracted from the maximum occupancy of the pub given that the only way in to the beer garden is from inside the pub?

There must be at least one exit from the beer garden direct to a place of ultimate safety without passing back through the pub?

The total capacity will depend mainly on the available means of escape from the premises, but it can be dangerous to amalgamate external and internal areas due to potential migration issues if it starts raining.

The summerland effect is a real factor which is why we are always banging on about robust emergency plans and well trained staff on this forum. Licenced premises can be very challenging, especially in respect of initiating an evacuation.

[lyledunn]

FYI, the application for the venue I described was withdrawn on the morning of the court hearing. I ran through the checklist provided by Phoenix and the supplementary points from Kurnal a couple of days before the court date along with the architect who would have been called to confirm the suitability of the premises. He decided that he could not make such a confirmation. Remedial work is now underway.