Fire Risk assessment Vs Building Regulations.

[Tom Sutton]

Yes jokar I agree with most of your last post, but  the last statement "and leave those with commercial premises to their own devices" never, if this happens twenty or thirty years down the line fire professionals will saying what they are saying about domestic fire deaths now. Do not ignore history try to reduce ALL fire deaths.

[jokar]

Possibly, however, we may not get the choice, enforcing authorities will choose the areas they wish to become involved with and target them as they are allowed.  The fact that there has to be an Inspection programme under the FRS Act 2004, ie the National Framework document may lead to commercial premises being inspected but only those who control the enforcing authority will decide on that and the content of their own inspection programme.

[Tom Sutton]

I agree with you only time will tell.

[Chris Houston]

We are never going to persuade people to install expensive preventitive & protective measures if we then tell them that they also have to install additional measures in case of system failure.

That's not my problem.  One should be open about a system's limitations.  If one can't persuade a client to install a system while being open about the system's limitations then either the solution or the presentation of the solution need to be improved.

[PhilB]

I see, so if I pay for an expensive sprinkler system in my building I cannot relax any passive fire protection just in case the day the fire occurs my sprinkler system is down.
Why then should I bother paying for an expensive system?

[Chris Houston]

I see, so if I pay for an expensive sprinkler system in my building I cannot relax any passive fire protection just in case the day the fire occurs my sprinkler system is down.
Why then should I bother paying for an expensive system?

You have changed the hypothesis, we were not talking about a sprinkler system.

I would see it differently.  I would say that now you have your sprinkler system you have to know it's limitations, you can only store good of a certain type to a certain height and should it be non operational, you must provide other risk control mechanisms for that duration.  

I think with a sprinkler system, you can typically have larger fire compartments, but there must be a limit to these compartments so tha if the system fails fire cannot spread unchecked.  Surely this is accepted practise and not some radical idea I have put forward?

[jokar]

Perhaps the sprinklers will save part or all of the building but the passive fire safety measures or the early warning systems will save lives.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

The other bit of course that fire deaths are in non commercial premises and it may be that enforcing authorities just deal with those areas to reduce that impact and leave those with commercial premises to their own devices.

Granted, there are few fire deaths in commercial premises, but to leave them to their own devices? Who exactly will be responsible for enforcement in that case?

Commercial premises have legal duties regarding fire safety, and to be honest, I've found it shocking how few of them actually comply to current legislation. Leaving them alone would be dangerous..... they wouldn't bother until something goes wrong, and I've seen quite a few where there is that possibility, even in my short time in Fire Safety.

[jokar]

Perhaps the key here is that the Government and the business stakeholders believe that those in the field of commerce have the ability, expertise and reason for caring for their staff and others.  In a business sense, the blue chip companies will look after themselves but there has always been a difficulty with small to medium size businesses especially with the fact that most never recover after a fire.  The question is for enforcing authorities, "which are the high risk premises and where do they spend time and resources to safe life from fire?  But, as Baldyman rightly queries, in a time of saving money where does it get saved, not in stock or staff bit in things that appear unimportant and unfortunately, even though the consequences can be disaster,  fire safety items are an easy option.

[Nearlybaldandgrey]

The risk inspection programme is mainly driven by life risk, not necessarily the premises risk.
I never hide the fact that owners/employers will be held accountable for any person being injured or, god forbid, dying during a fire at their premises as part of my introduction talk during inspections. I also find that those persoms who don't really care for the safety of their staff (and there are plenty out there) suddenly become very interested in what they can do.

This is purely my own opinion, but if an employer isn't prepared to spend, for example £1,000 on fire safety issues, then that is the value he/she places on a life....... totally unacceptable in my book.

I agree that larger companies will look after themselves, but they don't always do a good job as I have discovered. They like to make money, don't like spending it and think it's OK to sit on a quote for repairs to fire safety items for 3 months.......... but it isn't.
I have also discovered that some of the smaller companies are the ones that do a good job, and take full responsibility for safety matters. They know they can't spend large amounts of money in one go, so have a work schedule with funds allocated, usually the result of the risk assessment significant findings. Can you argue with someone who hasn't got it all in place at the time but is making progress and has identified the problems? I don't think so, but again, thats my opinion.