Tall buildings, single staircase

[AFD]

I am pleased to see this subject getting aired in this public domain, it is a problem we all know exists, but you try to get an organisation like CFOA, RICS, RIBA or any other associated body to openly question the ethics of the present system, and they will hide behind their politically correct wall and not rock any boats as they too know which side their bread is buttered.

[wee brian]

It gets a mention in the SAIC report that was commisioned by DCLG to look at the Future of Building Control

[val]

Why thank you Phil, and I'm sorry for some of the things I've said in the past.

Believe me, there are FSO's working on their CFO's to bring one of these daft 'solutions' to Court.

[AFD]

Thanks for that Wee Brian.
at least it's mentioned in the SAIC report ( I've not seen it before) , but there appears to be a lot of 'political management speak' that doesn't provide a way to stop, the profit incentive culture.
As for vals point the CFO's are in CFOA ( see my previous post) .

[AM]

And if the fire authorities do not recognise their role in policing building design and provide sufficient qualified staff and resources then I predict they will ultimately be taken out of the equation too.

To be fair Kurnal, it is not the FRS role to check the work of the Building Control Body, but thankfully they usually do. But I do agree that a lot of FRS seem to be cutting both IOs and training.

I have to agree with Val that what is needed is Chief Officers with the desire and willingness to challenge these muppets in Court.

There is no statutory bar now, if FRS disagree with AI they should tell them so and point out that they may serve an notice under the Fire Safety Order requiring alterations.

All well and good, but the brigade I was in was very much of the opinion that checking for compliance was the BCO's job not that of the fire safety dept, and the response was to point this out along with mentioning that the Fire safety Order exists. BR jobs were to take no more than 45 minutes on average. If the plans aren't checked as thoroughly, then how will they know which premises may have issues under the FSO?

[jokar]

A number of Brigades have the same system in that as quite rightly stated the Functional requirenment of the Building Regs is the remit of the BCO or AI and consultation is just that, it has no standing in law.  FSO's undertake consulatation through the FSO but comment through the FRS ACT in accordance with the procedural Manual.

[saddlers]

I am employed as an AI (Please don't throw anything at me!!) and have to say the situations you are discussing concern me as much as you. Obviously without knowing the specific project details it would be difficult to provide a definitive opinion, but the situation Civvy describes on a single stair does make me extremely nervous. When considering situations like these which are a "new approach" we implement policies and discuss these technical issues in a team scenario (and believe me some of these discussions get quite intense!!) and I have to say it does work well, because we all have different opinions and backgrounds, and it all contributes to forming  balanced and well informed decisions, financial implications do not come into it (and I can state that 100% positively).

I have to admit there is no way I would sell my integrity (because that's not in my nature as a person as much as an AI), and I assume a vast majority of AI's are the same (but I suppose you guys get to experience the whole range of AI's), but it will not take long before we all get tarred with the same brush.

I think a careful balance is required, we should not stifle innovation, but it should be based on proven principles especially when you consider that we are discussing fire safety. It is difficult to consider all angles, when looking at an alternative solution, but this is the one area where you need to spend that extra time considering the consequences. This is an area where I always welcomed the Fire Officer's comments, because it was an additional pair of eyes looking from a different perspective that may highlight operational issues not considered elsewhere, and this is why I always value the input at fire consultation stage.

I know the present system will ultimately result in a process where someone is held accountable at all stages (not that will be much comfort for the people in a fire), but I have no doubts that this should improve fire safety, some people have to be made accountable before they start to take notice, unfortunately not all people have basic morals!!

Then I am afraid it is over to you as enforcers, we can only control the building during its construction stage. If a practical and realistic management solution is provided, we cannot foresee that at some point in time someone will occupy the building who is not going to manage that system properly. It would be impossible to create a system that cannot be affected by the irresponsible person.

[Mike Buckley]

I have been looking at an interesting document from the Department for Communities and Local Government called Building Regulations and Fire Safety Procedural Guidance. This lays out how the system should work. It also sets time scales for replying to requests for consultation. However in the light of this thread paragraph 2.17 is of interest.

"The fire safety enforcing authoritys' comments must clearly distinguish between matters: which may have to be complied with under the Fire Safety Order when the building is occupied. which may have to be complied with to meet other than fire safety legislation other then Building Regulations. which are only advisory and not enforceable under legislation."

The guidance starts with building control and the fire authority seeking to resolve the matter quickly and simply. However then goes on:

"Failing this then the fire safety enforcing authority should set down its concerns and recommendations in a formal written case, which may include details of any enforcement action it may take upon occupation of the building to building control who should retain a copy and ensure that a copy is provided to the applicant."


As a different spin on the debate, what would happen if the building in question goes through the consultation phase without a comment from the fire safety enforcing authority and the fire authority then tries to take enforcement action. Could the occupier argue that the authority has missed its chance or failed in its duty to properly examine the plans?

[Pip]

I would suggest not, as in our area the rider is put on that the applicant (R.P.) should carry out there own F.R.A. to comply with the F.S.O, as although usually compliance with the B.R. will mean compliance with the F.S.O., may not always be the case.The onus is on the R.P.

[val]

Saddlers,

Thank you for your post and I fully accept that some AI's do a fine job and would never dream of passing a fundementally defective building. No one believes you are all bad. I wonder if pressure from your side might have a good effect on BRAC, etc. I feel that we, (FRA's) are all treated like dinosaurs who want to return to presecriptive boxes with a staircase at each end.

Mike

Thanks for the quote...that is what I mean...put it in writing and insist that the AI/BCO informs the client. It doesn't hae to be chapter and verse...just an indication that this or that won't work on occupation.

If we miss something on consultation, it may be embarrassing but not fatal. Prior warning just removes the defence of 'ambush'

[AFD]

I agree with Kunal that the FRA will get taken out of the 'loop' that is the intention of government.  My experience of Approved Inspectors ( experience, not a sweeping statement)  is that the type of person that goes into that role either plays the odds and thinks what is the chance of a fatality coming back to bite me here ( as do the government and CFOA etc.) or couldn't care less, profit over integrity !
As for wee brians comment, I agree, but then political masters will win and pull back from actions under the RRO.  In a previous life I challegend a AI, ( on a matter that my views still came to fruition ie on occupation did not work ) and the CFOA member apologised for my impertinence ) for questioning is integrity.  I have yet to meet an AI who actually wants to oversee a building    project that has a reasonable, achievable fire precautions package.  If anybody answers this post and says they are that person , I can guarantee they will not be in post in 12 months, because that is not the remit of AI's they are there to earn a profit !

[kurnal]

I dont think they should all be painted with the same brush AFD. One of my clients is an AI company and whilst they  are quite happy and confident to push the boundaries to an extent- eg within the guidelines of DD9999- they will consult me for my opinion if they think a design may be a step too far.
Another AI  company has a former well respected instructor from the fire service college on the board who heads a small department overseeing the fire safety aspects.

[CivvyFSO]

I think it is another case of how far these boundaries can be pushed sometimes. If the AI's who are pushing the boundaries further are the ones getting the work, then others will soon cotton on to what they need to do to get the work. I can imagine it is a very active and fickle marketplace.

The building in question was a safe building until occupied. 3 door protection to residential areas, dry riser, ventilation, ff shaft & lift etc, L2 alarm. It wasn't until it was occupied and the occupiers started interfering with it and neglecting the risers that it became an issue. But surely this human factor should be taken into account, hence the need for second staircases or sprinklers etc.

Does it comply with the RRO? Possibly, at the moment. It is nice that it has things in place to compensate, but all those things need to be working all the time for the whole strategy to work. A couple of wedged fire doors to the basement car park quickly turns it into a potential nightmare building. (Yes, the shaft goes all the way from car park basement to 12th floor.) The same can be said of any highly engineered shopping complexes, but the management in those tends to be excellent.

IMO, a couple of these buildings probably wouldn't be an issue, but if it becomes a regular occurrence these buildings going up, then each one increases the risk. If theres only a 1 in 1,000,000 daily chance of a fire somehow affecting the staircase, once 100 of these buildings are up it is down to a 1 in 10,000. Over the course of a year, 1 in 27. Keep them up 27 years... Good old statistics!

But if we allow one, then we have no real right to dismiss the next set of similar plans that are submitted.

I think all we can do is hope to catch these buildings before any decline in standards, and possibly take action against anyone who does anything that interferes with the whole strategy that is in place. Good cases for alterations notices?

[Mike Buckley]

Pip, yes I can see FAs using such a rider but I wonder if legally it is worth the paper it is written on. Can a FA discharge its duty by using a rider like this?

The other side of the issue is the document refers to the "fire safety enforcing authority" which opens the door to removing this aspect from the Fire Service in the same way that AIs can be used instead of BCOs.

[Pip]

Pip, yes I can see FAs using such a rider but I wonder if legally it is worth the paper it is written on. Can a FA discharge its duty by using a rider like this?

The other side of the issue is the document refers to the "fire safety enforcing authority" which opens the door to removing this aspect from the Fire Service in the same way that AIs can be used instead of BCOs.

Well,I was under the impression it was a duty to consult,not approve.Approval is the BCO/AI's job.It is the RP's duty to conform.Think about your car's M.O.T.-it has passed a test,but the certificate does not necerssarily meant it is safe/legal to drive!