Fire Assembly Point

[Rocha]

I am currently in consultation with a Building Manager for a client regarding the fire assembly point for an 8 storey building.  Office tenants occupy most areas of the building and an exclusive restaurant is located at lower ground level.

The restauarnt is not happy with the current location of the fire assembly point as they are unhappy at having to evacuate all occupants approx 160 yards from the building.  They would prefer to evacuate to a nearer point, which is not particularly available, however this would result in changing the assembly point for the entire building.

Securtiy personel are based on site and undertake the roll call at the assembly point requiring all tenants to evacuate to the same point to be accounted for.

Any words of wisdom how I can make them see that they must comply with the current evacuation arrangement.

[PhilB]

They don't have to comply with current evacuation arrangements but they must co-operate to ensure the safety of every employee (until October )...risk appropriate fire safety provisions is all that's required.

You could contact one of the many so called consultants who appear to be emerging for further expensive advice or send me an e-mail and I will be happy to give further guidance.

[kurnal]

Whats this Phil
People in glass houses may be prone to calling the kettle black!!!

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Now I'd have said that the assembly point should be away from the building, but obviously not too far, and in a location where the persons there will not interfere with fire service operations etc.......

[Chris Houston]

If their building is on fire, it might be prudennt to be quite far from it to avoid getting hit by falling debris, burn my flames, suffolcated by smoke or get in the way of the emergency services.

However, there may be (or not) a real risk of injury from crossing roads and a balance must be struck.

Also consider that in a bomb evacuations, 160m may not be far enough away.

There are lots of reasons to consider different locations, but the hassle of walking 160 yards probably ought not to be one of them.

You could point out if there was a fire and his staff and customers did not move 160m away they might be killed, your debate about moving 160 yards might come up in court and he might appear irresponsible on the front page of a newspaper?

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Valid points Chris.

I would have no problem with an assembly point not too far away from the building initially. I would like to think that if the place was on fire, then people will think to move further away to avoid injury..... something which should be covered in the Emargency Action Plan of the Fire Risk Assessment.

If people are still near a building that is involved in fire, then the incident commander will initiate the setting up of cordons and the moving of people to a safe distance so as not to interfere with operations.

[jokar]

Please remember that once outside the staff will come into contact with members of the public.  A large quantitiy of people in a small space outside of the premises may cause congestion and the public may decide to walk in the road.  This dangerous practice could cause injury to others and as such the management could be held responsible.  Also, as a consideration, what about when RR(FS)O comes out and the term relevant person becomes enacted, could death or serious injury to a member of the public passing by because of the above have a profound effect on the managers of the premises.  Just some thoughts.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Good question Jokar.......

My understanding is that the responsible person has to ensure that relevant persons are not affected should the premises become involved in fire.... there is no mention of evacuation within the RRO.

I could be wrong of course..........

[CSU]

Good question Jokar.......

My understanding is that the responsible person has to ensure that relevant persons are not affected should the premises become involved in fire.... there is no mention of evacuation within the RRO.

I could be wrong of course..........

RR (FS)O Article 15 - 1 b
Procedures for serious and imminent danger and for danger areas
15. —(1) The responsible person must—
(a) establish and, where necessary, give effect to appropriate procedures,
including safety drills, to be followed in the event of serious and imminent
danger to relevant persons;
(b) nominate a sufficient number of competent persons to implement those
procedures in so far as they relate to the evacuation of relevant persons from
the premises;

I think that mentions evacuation LOL

[jokar]

As far as I am aware, Article 15 is straight from the MHSWR.  The ACOP to this states that Serious and Imminent Danger is in regard to specific areas of a premises such as  a high risk process area.  Therefore, a safety drill is not a fire drill per see, but a safety drill for this area alone.  You could have a tenuous link of course to the whole of a premises but when a premises may be part of a premises, how do you evacuate all of it without co-operation.  I can type the whole bit in here if you want but knowledge is a wonderful thing and as we all can read!!!

[CSU]

You try to assist and somebody has to have a pop at you

Still if you have nothing better to do, carry on nitpicking, but as far as I am concerned I intend to take heed of Article 15 as set out in the (soon to be in force we hope) RR (FS) O, tenous - your opinion, which you are entitled to - or not.

So with your kind permission I'll opt out of this thread as it obviously upsets you so much that someone could have a different opinion to you.

[jokar]

No offence intended, just passing on some information for deliberation or not as we all see fit.  I thought this was a forum for information passing and for us all to chat about the fire sfaety lives we laed.  Please accept my apologies for the offence caused, it was certainly not meant.

[CSU]

Accepted and if you wish I will edit todays earlier posting?

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

Thanks for that CSU..........  my post did say I could be wrong!!!

[Ken Taylor]

That's an interesting point about co-operation, Phil.

I took it that Reg 11 of MHSW Regs would continue to apply with regard to co-operation and co-ordination regarding the 'relevant statutory provisions' and that the reference to the FP(W) Regs would be transferred to the RR(FS) Order. Has something 'slipped through the net' here?