definition of a 'building'

[terry martin]

not sure that what i am dealing with under the new RRO is 1 or 3 buildings.

The building externally appears to be one building but has vertical imperforate walls seperating it into 3 'premises' (all owned independently), but only for ground floor and above, they all share a basement car park which covers the footprint of the 3 premises(this is also owned seperatly by the freeholder).

 The alarms are independant to the point that if the alarm goes of in one 'premises' it does not set the alarm of in any other, except if the alarm in the basement is activated then all 3 'premises' alarms are also.

I know that under the old FPA a building was defined by its impeforate walls, so under the  old act i would probably of treated this as one building.

however, i am not sure if a 'building' requires a definition within the RRO.

there is an interpretation of the word 'premises' but no definition of a 'building'

taking into account these are multi occ and require a RA for the common parts
would any Auditors or Assessors treat this as 3 seperate common parts or one.

[jokar]

Simply put there are no buildings any more.  Premises includes "Any Place" and therefore, depending on the occupancy you can have a premises with a number of premises contained within.  Each premises will have to have a FRA and recorde if thye meet the specific criteria in th RR(FS)O.  The definitions and Articles in Part 1 of the Order are the bits you need to look at.

[Mike Buckley]

I would look at it from the point of view of the escape routes and the place of safety. If it is possible to reach a place of safety without going through the common part then I would treat the common part seperately. If however to reach a place of safety it is necessary to go through the common part then I would expect the RA for each premise to include that in their RA.

In short I would give it a fairly definite maybe.

[steve walker]

In relation to fire, I still think it is a relevent concept and a useful definition.

I would assume that a serious fire within a building is likely to affect the whole of that building.

There are large buildings that acheive a high level of internal compartmentation so that each compartment could be considered separately but this is not common. Even if the fire, heat and smoke did not directly affect other parts then we could consider the application of several tons of water.

[kurnal]

We cant consider the Fire Safety Order in isolation. The building Regs would also say this is one building in my opinion.(under ADB)

And if we consider each part as a seperate building  or completely seperate premises how can we ensure that all responsible persons co-operate with each other over the maintenance of the detection and alarm equipment?

[terry martin]

taking the comments on board their are 2 view i could take on this.

Firstly, in order to look at the 'workplace' i must also look at their common parts which would also include the basement car park. With the view that if a fire occured in the basement it could potentially involve all 4 premises(4th being the independantly owned basement car park), it would be reasonable to assume that all 4 'premises' are inextricably linked and therefore i should arrange to meet all the 4 nominated responsible persons and audit the building as a whole to ensure that they have sufficiently liased with each other.

Secondly, just audit the 'workplace' and its common parts within that 'premises' and ensure they have sufficiently liased with the responsible person for the basement car park  

personally i think the first is more appropriate. if i look at the first premises i should also look at the basement, which would also be under the other premises therefore i should also look at them.

any further views?

[AM]

The FSO places a duty on resposible persons to enure the safety of 'relevant persons' with regard to general fire precautions. The definition of 'relevant persons' refers to those in the 'immediate vicinity who are at risk from a fire on the premises'. Therefore the resp. person wrt the carpark would have to take occupiers of the offices into consideration, even if the escape routes do not pass thru' the basement.

[jokar]

If you read the RR(FS)O then you will note that the FRA should include all areas that are covered and that the FRA should for any one premises include all areas that a person in employment would have access to for working or egress/ingress.  Therefore an FRA for each individual premises would include the workplace + the shared areas including the car park.  The person in control or owner would have to undertake an FRA of the areas under their control.  In accordance with the Order each RP has to co-operate and co-ordinate with each other and if necessary appoint one person to lead.

Steve, I understand your reasoning for fire but there is no definition of a building in RR(FS)O and therefore yours and Kurnals point with regard to ADB become superfluous, without being rude, to the question being asked.  The context of what anything is called is dependent on the legislation being used and for FRA then premises is the definition.

[kurnal]

Hi Jokar I dont quite follow your point- but I may have misinterpreted the question?
I know the statutory bar is no more but surely  in carrying out your risk assessment you would have regard to the original design strategy of the building as approved under the building regulations?
If nothing else these will be existing risk control measures  to be taken into account and  is probably why the alarms are linked together in the first place? Do the approved documents no longer provide a provide a benchmark standard that we may work from?

I dont think we will find all the answers we need in the RRO and will still need to look for other sources of evidence to inform our risk assessments. But I guess I may have missed your point on this one.

[steve walker]

If you read the RR(FS)O then you will note that the FRA should include all areas that are covered and that the FRA should for any one premises include all areas that a person in employment would have access to for working or egress/ingress.  Therefore an FRA for each individual premises would include the workplace + the shared areas including the car park.  The person in control or owner would have to undertake an FRA of the areas under their control.  In accordance with the Order each RP has to co-operate and co-ordinate with each other and if necessary appoint one person to lead.

Steve, I understand your reasoning for fire but there is no definition of a building in RR(FS)O and therefore yours and Kurnals point with regard to ADB become superfluous, without being rude, to the question being asked.  The context of what anything is called is dependent on the legislation being used and for FRA then premises is the definition.

Jokar, I agree; there is no definition of a building in the FSO and that "premises" is the term used. The definition of "premises" is very wide ("anyplace" with a few exceptions).

When should RP co-operate and co-ordinate with each other?

 If they are in separate buildings and have separate means of escape probably not. Sometimes two or more buildings share an alarm system or other facilities - there are no hard and fast rules. Generally though I think that it is reasonable to require the occupants of a building to co-operate and co-ordinate.

[terry martin]

thanks for everyone's views so far.

with regards to the access and egress issue. although they are imperforate walls within the definition they do have emergency routes between each premises on some upper floors (unused for daily activities and locked, but linked to the alarm to unlock in the event of an emergency) so there is a facility for a person in one premises to traverse to another premises if necessary

with regard to the basement there is emergency routes into each premise above

with this in mind, any further views

[kurnal]

"taking into account these are multi occ and require a RA for the common parts
would any Auditors or Assessors treat this as 3 seperate common parts or one?"

Definately 3 common parts requiring co-operation, co-ordination and communcation between all 3 occupiers and whoever has control over the common parts including the car park.

[Mike Buckley]

Yes I agree with kurnal, the doors make the difference. I would think the same would apply to any premise where one of the escape routes is via another premise.

However on a purely theoretical basis, if the emergency routes were not there and MOE were satisfactory within each premise, how would it be treated?

[steve walker]

Just in case anyone doesnt have the old building definition to hand:

HOME OFFICE
Fire Precautions Act 1971 - Circ. No.5
DEFINITION OF "BUILDING"
The definition of "building" has been interpreted variously by the courts for purposes of other legislation and is therefore subject to some uncertainty.   However, to ensure uniformity in the administration of the Act, it is considered desirable that a building should generally be regarded as extending from its lowest level to roof-top and that the horizontal limits should be regarded as set by party/separating walls through which there is no internal communication with neighbouring buildings.   Doors provided in party walls solely as fire exits should not be regarded as a means of internal communication.   Nor is it considered that the effect of imperforate floors extending over the whole area of a building is to create two (or more) separate buildings, notwithstanding that there may be no internal means of communication between the parts.

[steve walker]

Yes I agree with kurnal, the doors make the difference. I would think the same would apply to any premise where one of the escape routes is via another premise.

However on a purely theoretical basis, if the emergency routes were not there and MOE were satisfactory within each premise, how would it be treated?

I can think of some buildings that consist of shops on the ground floor that are imperforate to flats, a large office, or hotel that extends above them. There is usually at least an hour FR between the shops and the upper floors.

Is this a similar issue?

Not for escape but for property / firefighter protection I would probably recommend heat detectors in the shops linked to a system covering the large hotel / offices above. However do the shops need to know if there is an alarm in the building above? I think the answer is, "It depends ..."