Consultation under the Building Regulations and AI Legislation

[jokar]

Currently under FPA, the Building Regs and AI, there is a consultation process between Fire Authorities and those responsible for means of escape, either BCO's or AI's. This is about the Certification process.  Why then, if means of escape is an issue for those mentioned above and when occupied a premises is subject to an FRA from the Responsible Person, is there a consultation process in the RR(FS)O.  Consultation is that, consultation, not to take note of.  Compliance with the requirement for B1 is for the client and the BCO?AI not the FA.  Compliance with RR(FS)O is for the Responsible Person.  The enforcing authority under RR(FS)O has an enforcing role (policing role) and articles 13,14 and 17 are for the Responsible Person, where necessary, to consider.  Does anyone else think that this is a strange thing.

[ian gough]

Jokar, not strictly true that consultation is about 'certification process' as there is more to it than that.
You fail to mention B5: Access and Facilities for the Fire Service,  which is a most important (though sometimes sadly neglected) issue of building regulations. It is now more important that FAs are consulted - with the extended ambit of the Fire Safety Order.
There are other issues but I wont go into them for now.

[shaunmckeever]

Neither BCO's nor AI's will be entering a burning building. Firefighters will be. I think there is an obvious need for the FA to have more than a passing interest to the degree that you are referring to Jokar.

[PhilB]

I'm not entirely sure what the question was but there is a requirement to consult the enforcing authoritybefore erecting, altering or changing use of a building. this duty is imposed on BCOs (Article 45) and AIs(Article 46).

Also there is a duty to maintain those items provided for safety of fire-fighters under B5 (Article 38).

What is gone is the statutory bar imposed on FAs by sec 13 of FPA but if the consultation process is complied with a FA would rarely require further works. The fact that they can require further works is required by virtue of the dynamic nature of risk appropriate enforcement.

[jokar]

Ok then, the duty for all groups is to consult.  The burning building question is relevant, are not the trainees taught dynamic risk assessment, "do not enter if is considered to dangerous".  Access is one thing, how close can they get with fire engines and FF shafts another.  Article 38 may not be applied as the maintenance of equipment provided under any other enactment can not be an offence as offences are only against relevant persons and operational firefighters carrying out that function are not designated as relevant persons.  How much about dwellings do FSO's know?  The future consulatation process will involve B1 on dwellings as well.  Again the duty to consult but not necessarily take note of.  Who makes the final decision and what on.  If FSO's are out there inspecting and the consulation process takes account of persons hours where does that time come from for the process to be undertaken?

[steve walker]

Ok then, the duty for all groups is to consult.  The burning building question is relevant, are not the trainees taught dynamic risk assessment, "do not enter if is considered to dangerous".  Access is one thing, how close can they get with fire engines and FF shafts another.  Article 38 may not be applied as the maintenance of equipment provided under any other enactment can not be an offence as offences are only against relevant persons and operational firefighters carrying out that function are not designated as relevant persons.  How much about dwellings do FSO's know?  The future consulatation process will involve B1 on dwellings as well.  Again the duty to consult but not necessarily take note of.  Who makes the final decision and what on.  If FSO's are out there inspecting and the consulation process takes account of persons hours where does that time come from for the process to be undertaken?

I think that you are right that there is no immediate offence but we can serve an enforcement notice if they fail to comply with article 38. Then it will be an offence if they dont comply with the enforcement notice. So FRSs can enforce this article but only by making it the subject of an enforcement notice.

[wee brian]

With the end of the Stat Bar, consultation is more important.

In theory Building Regs should deal with means of escape etc and then the RR(FS)O would deal with maintentance, management and fire prevention.  Inpractice chnages in risk could affect the need for built in protection so the Order, in effect, gives the Fire Safety enforcing authority the power to require physical changes to a building.

The fact is that the Building Control Body and the Fire Safety Enforcing authority may not always see eye to eye and it is the client who is left in the middle wondering what the hell to do and who to listen to.

My experience is that both authorities can get it wrong sometimes. At least when they consult there is an opurtunity to identify any differences and iron them out or failing that let the client know before the building is finished.

[ian gough]

I fully agree again Wee B - I don't know what's come over me.