BB100 applied retrospectively

[bevfs]

HI All,
secondary school built early in  1980's.My question is can BB100 be applied retrospectively

[AnthonyB]

I look for compliance with the current edition of BB7 at the time of build first and foremost and then see if there are any major differences between that and BB100 (not too many related to pure life safety) - if there are I assess whether the old standard presents a significant risk where BB100 standards make a difference or if it's just a 'wish list' for future planning.

[colin todd]

Tony, sometimes you ARE the man!

[bevfs]

thanks thats great a bottle of J&b is on its way

[Fishy]

Bb100 is a design guide - if you're undertaking design, then or course it can have an effect on the existing premises.  If you're not undertaking design, then it doesn't straightforwardly apply, and neither do any of the previous incarnations of that guide (or any other design guidance that may have been used).  In theory (if the school is in England) then the relevant 'colour book' produced to accompany the 2005 FSO is more relevant (though I'm generally not a great fan of these, they are the relevant statutory guidance): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/14887/fsra-educational-premises.pdf

If the premises is not being altered, and you're undertaking a fire risk assessment you could use Bb100 as a benchmark, but simply recommending that a premises not designed to that standard is brought into a state of full compliance isn't what risk assessment of existing premises in steady-state is all about, and it might well involve a substantial amount of unnecessary work.

[AnthonyB]

The problem with the DCLG guide is that it isn't really suited to schools at all, it's mostly just the Offices & Shops guide with a bit of the assembly guide thrown in and can lead to inappropriate findings.

Using BB7 & BB100 as pointers coupled with general fire risk assessors knowledge and assessment principles (and the PAS79 methodology) usually brings appropriate results, having taken over FRAs at a school that was in the past prosecuted has meant that external scrutiny is more present than normal so I'd know by now if there were issues.

The DCLG guides are a nice starting point, aimed at DIY assessments by the RP, but they aren't the be all & end all and are due review.

[Fishy]

The problem with the DCLG guide is that it isn't really suited to schools at all, it's mostly just the Offices & Shops guide with a bit of the assembly guide thrown in and can lead to inappropriate findings...

...The DCLG guides are a nice starting point, aimed at DIY assessments by the RP, but they aren't the be all & end all and are due review.

...I seem to be largely agreeing with you... though perhaps I didn't make this as clear as I could!  As I said, I'm no fan of the DCLG guides - most of them were fairly poor at time of publication (in many cases containing large chunks cut-and-pasted out of the then current version of the AD-B), and time hasn't been kind to them; they've gradually declined into being even less useful.  Having said all that, they are the relevant statutory guidance, and if we do ignore them (and their contents) then we ought to be prepared to explain why we know better than those who wrote them.  Many of us can, I know - and for this reason it does puzzle me why our government seems to be so happy to continue to publish documents that are so poor, with apparently no thought to maintaining and updating them?

I'd take a slight issue with BB7 - I never quite see what the relevance (to safety risk assessment) of the design guidance that might have existed at the time of construction is - for any premises.  I'm sure that those responsible for risk assessing the Tower of London aren't particularly interested in knowing what the building codes were in the 11th Century (slightly daft example, I know, but illustrates a point).  I always use whatever the current guidance is, identify where the premises doesn't comply, and come to a view as to whether those non-compliances can be retained, or whether further risk reduction measures are needed.  In 30-odd years in fire risk assessment and design, I've never once felt the need to interrogate historic design guidance, except in a few expert witness cases, for particular contractual reasons or for pure academic interest?

[AnthonyB]

It's part of the PAS79 process where you compare legacy standards with current to see if there is any shortfall and if so assess the impact. If you don't understand the old standards in the first place you are on the back foot already.

The point with the DCLG Guides is that they are not in any way statutory guidance like an ACOP or similar, Article 50 gives them no special status whatsoever which is why the Lords amendment to the Fire Safety Bill, if accepted, changes this for guidance for domestic premises of 2 or more dwellings and gives them statutory status such that following them assumes compliance with the Order and not following them assumes non compliance.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Applied retroactively, I don?t even recall it being used when building a school in the first place. Developers avoided it like the plague.

When I was an inspecting officer we would provide all the information needed to carry out the sprinkler assessment. One school had 256 fires/incidents over 5 years within a mile of the site (not a city centre either) Still no engagement.

Ironically, I was a governor of a school who weren?t allowed to build a small extension to the hall because of BB99 which lays down the use of space in schools. The extension would mean that we lost 50 square metres of playground and Sport England objected. We weren?t allowed to build.

[Fishy]

It's part of the PAS79 process where you compare legacy standards with current to see if there is any shortfall and if so assess the impact. If you don't understand the old standards in the first place you are on the back foot already.

The point with the DCLG Guides is that they are not in any way statutory guidance like an ACOP or similar, Article 50 gives them no special status whatsoever which is why the Lords amendment to the Fire Safety Bill, if accepted, changes this for guidance for domestic premises of 2 or more dwellings and gives them statutory status such that following them assumes compliance with the Order and not following them assumes non compliance.

It is part of the PAS 79 process... but if you look carefully at the relevant guidance (e.g. the flowchart in Figure 2 in PAS 79-1: 2020) then no acceptability decisions use that assessment, to any great extent.  If you look at the three routes by which you can arrive at "Adequate fire protection", all of them require assessment against current standards, and if the premises doesn't comply, judgements to be made as to the reasonable practicability of addressing those non-compliances.  So - perhaps it's me, but I still can't see why assessment against previous standards is a useful part of fire risk assessment.  This makes sense to me - because of course there should be no presumption that a building built to (say) 1970s building codes would meet 21st Century fire safety legislation - why would it?  My Tower of London example is extreme - but it illustrates the point?

On the DCLG guides; no, they're not an 'ACOP' (I don't think there are any fire safety ACOPs), but so far as I understand they are still statutory guidance, issued by the (at the time) Government of England and Wales. As such anyone who chooses not to follow them ought to (in my view) be able to explain - in court if necessary - why they know better than those who wrote them.  If one is confident that one can do this - happy days!  I  do fire risk assessments in a very niche market. I assess types of premises that one of the DCLG guides covers - but it does so pretty badly.  Because of this I'm confident that my alternative approach, using bespoke templates and what parts of PAS 79 that I regard as useful (but not the templates), along with a judgement-based approach to applying the relevant 'new build' guidance is more appropriate and more robust.

[AnthonyB]

The DCLG guides aren't given any special status under Article 50 - which is why the Lord's amended the Fire Safety Bill so that the guides relating to premises comprising two or more dwellings will have such status and in these if you don't follow them it's evidence towards a breach by itself & vice versa.

The original guides were given no special status so as not to be prescriptive and allow alternate solutions - with residential  things are looking far more prescriptive in approach.

[Fishy]

The DCLG guides aren't given any special status under Article 50 - which is why the Lord's amended the Fire Safety Bill so that the guides relating to premises comprising two or more dwellings will have such status and in these if you don't follow them it's evidence towards a breach by itself & vice versa.

The original guides were given no special status so as not to be prescriptive and allow alternate solutions - with residential  things are looking far more prescriptive in approach.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that they have any 'prescriptive' status; that wasn't my point.  My point is that they are the guidance referenced in the legislation, and they were issued by the Government.  Because of that it's my view that it would be very risky indeed not to be able to evidence that you'd considered them, when you conduct your fire risk assessment activites.  In practical terms, that means that if you choose not to follow them, you ought to be able to come up with a convincing reason why - and be prepared to present that case in court, in the (probably unlikely) event that it were necessary.  That's my own personal benchmark - if others disagree, then that's absolutely fine.

[Stinky]

 In terms of compartmentation/fire-resisting construction I am of the opinion that you can apply the recommendations of Approved Document B.  Yes ADB refers to BB100 for schools, but you can still legally construct a school in accordance with ADB. So if you can design/construct a school in accordance with ADB then it should satisfy the FSO. So the compartmentation/fire-resisting construction could be fairly limited.