Greater Manchester Act 1981 Section 65

[kurnal]

I was surprised to find that the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 has not modified section 65 of the Greater Manchester Act 1981 which allows the local authority to apply draconian measures to storage buildings over 7000metres, far in excess of the guidance documents or approved documents.

Is the Manchester Act right and is there a need for all such buildings to be sprinklered for the safety of firefighters and the environment- in which case why was the Fire Safety Order not used as a tool to implement this- or is it that there are still glaring inconsistencies applied to fire safety issues across the UK that the RRO has chosen not to address?

[Ashley Wood]

Has the RR(FS)O replaced these local acts such as the Manchester Act, the Hampshire Act etc?

[kurnal]

The RRO has modified certain sections of the local acts and thses are listed in the shedule to the order. However sect 65 is not one of them. This may be because it was intended to provide safety to firefighters- and this is not the intention of the RRO. But then when you look at the determinations on the communities website the argument is determined by a technical arguments over fire risk and risk of flashover- and the Secretary of state determines that large storage  buildings are not safe without sprinklers. So why doesnt she change the  Building Regs to ensure consistent standards across England and Wales?

[wee brian]

Let me explain.

The Local Act measures that relate to fire precautions have been modified or repealed by the Order.

Other aspects of the Local Acts have been changed where the Housing Act makes them obsolete.

This leaves the stuff on large storage buildings. Which has been left for the review of the Building Regs.  The proposal in the Part B consultation was to set a national max compartment size and then repeal the Local Act powers. The proposal was for 440,000 m3 ( a bit more than 7000!)

In the meantime the Acts are in force and the Secretartyy of State has to detemine appeals based on what the Acts allow (regardless of what the Building Regs do or dont say).

[kurnal]

Thanks wee Brian.
I was rather irritated by the irony of it all when my client who has a 6.5 million cubic metre warehouse  in the midlands (sprinklered by his choice and not through any requirement) wanted a fire strategy for a tiny new satellite storage shed  in GMC and was suddenly subject to the weight of section 65.
As someone who has supported  sprinklers for many years I was peeved to find the secretary of state using technical arguments about fire risk to justify the determinations but look at all the prevarication we have had over the review of the building regs!! Hypocritical or what?
But thats politics and as you say when forced in a corner  they have to enforce the law even when its an ass.

[wee brian]

Its all in the language - there is a risk of a large fire, the Local Act is there to stop that.

As far as building regs is concerend preventing large fires is not the Objective.