Tall buildings, single staircase

[CivvyFSO]

Opinions required:

There's a few buildings popping up here, 14 storeys upwards, with single staircases.
Different occupancies, i.e. Shops at ground, then residential, offices at top. All occupiers above ground sharing same staircase. We (Fire Service) have suggested sprinklers, but BC have deemed them acceptable without. Mainly due to good compartmentation between uses.

This is all well and good, nice sterile protected staircase, firefighting shaft or corridor, vents etc.

How about in 5 years time, when competition has brought the price of rent down, buildings are managed poorly, doors start getting into disrepair etc. Are we asking for trouble? Or is it ok because it is someone elses responsiblity?

Been to one recently and the 'punter' had installed a lockable door in the FF corridor, meaning that firefighters would go up in the nice ff lift, and be greeted with a nice quality locked door between them and the dry riser. And I have found out that the dry riser is not being maintained. The alarm in not monitored and they have no keyholder nominated. So if the alarm goes off when the concierge is not there (Mon - Fri 9-5) it keeps going off until she gets there on Monday. (So for all intents and purposes they are without a functioning fire alarm as it is being ignored)

It could be fortunate that this has been found, but as more of these buildings go up and the risk appropriate enforcing regime kicks in, would these businesses get visited? (This building is only about 1 year old and only got visited due to a small fire in a shop unit below.)

From my point of view, this is so new that I would expect to see exemplary management of the common areas i.e. 5588 pt 12, as a trade off for not putting sprinklers in, and as acknowledgement of the single stair condition.

I know building control only really deal with the building before it is occupied, but surely it should take into account that they cannot guarantee good management, and therefore err on the side of caution. i.e. Put the damn sprinklers in?

I would like to hear from you 'consultant types' especially, with regards the standard you would expect if you had helped design such a  building to be safe without sprinklers.

[kurnal]

Have I read this right? Buildings of 14 floors and higher with a single staircase? In mixed use?
What happened to the 11m rule for single staircase under building regs approved document B / BS5588?

[val]

As an 'enforcer', I am becoming increasingly disillusioned (?) by the approach that a number of Building Conrol Bodies are taking, (both Local Authority and Approved). It seems that the 'threat' of the client going elsewhere is colouring their professional judgement. Either collectively we have been getting it very wrong all these years and over prescribing, or they are taking the 20 pieces of silver and looking the other way.


In respect of the case above;

Look at the security arrangements that the different occupancies will want?
Look at the impact on the single firefighting staircase with firefighters going up whilst occupants coming down?
Impact of firefighters setting up on the floor below the fire?
Fire warning strategy...all out or do we leave the domestic residents in their concrete fire proof cells?
Is the staircase suitably sized for full evac?


Tell the BCO or AI formally that you do not believe the client/eventual occupier will be able to comply with the RRO...they must pass this on to the client.

We'll end up in court when Chief Officers stop lining their pockets with massive pay rises and get a backbone to challenge this nonsense.

And I haven't had any claret yet!

[kurnal]

Val you are absolutely right.
I asked a similar question on a different thread  recently when I read that  fire curtains were being used as part of the protection to a firefighting lobby in a building with extended travel distances and reduced compartmentation.

What happened to the requirement  for a designer to demonstrate compliance with the functional requirement of the building Regs should he choose to adopt an engineered solution?  Is it a complete free for all in the big cities?

I have a lot of faith in many approved inspectors, but by the same token have heard an approved inspector being told by a developer that if he did not approve something he would not get the next contract.

It really shows the importance of fire authorities being on the ball when reviewing consultations under building regulations and the need to follow up cases to ensure their recommendations have been incorporated once the building is occupied. If you guys cant do it nobody else can!

[AnthonyB]

We are doing a refresher with the FPA and the opinion being given across was that AI's are letting stuff through to please the client & that if a client gets the kickback from BCO they'll just find an AI to give it the OK.

Sadly designers & AI's are letting buildings through with little thought as to the ongoing ownership & fire safety management which in a short time will render their engineering solutions & shortcuts ineffective

[wee brian]

What we need is for a Fire Authority to take enforcement action on a new building. Clients may think twice about taking short cuts.

[messy]

I have a lot of faith in many approved inspectors, but by the same token have heard an approved inspector being told by a developer that if he did not approve something he would not get the next contract.

I have come across this 'conflict of interest' quite a lot with Approved Inspectors and their larger (bullying) clients.

I can now often recognise when a previously reasonable AI submits plans, which are frankly naive with virtually no chance of success. For instance: my most recent contact with an AI involved a 38m single direction TD within a basement which came up to the rear of a retail outlet, and then had another 20/25m+ (through the shop) to the final exit (L3 AFD and no engineered solution offered).

My usual procedure is that I telephone them to confirm their proposals. They give me a load of corporate nonsense/spin pathetically trying to justify their plans/strategy, before finally admitting that they were prefer that we - the enforcing authorities- would reject the proposals rather than them as it would be 'commercially preferable' to them.

Whilst I sympathise with their commercial pressure and acknowledge that we do not work with those same difficulties, I do get rather fed up with these cases using/wasting my time, whilst the AI earns plenty of cash for doing virtually nothing.

[CivvyFSO]

Have I read this right? Buildings of 14 floors and higher with a single staircase? In mixed use?
What happened to the 11m rule for single staircase under building regs approved document B / BS5588?

Yes you did hear it right.

Look at the security arrangements that the different occupancies will want?

The offices at the top have a coded lock to get out of the staircase into the corridor. So to set up on the floor below, then go up the staircase, the firefighters need the access codes. Which they didn't have until my visit. Without the visit fighting a fire on the top floor would have had severe difficulties. They would have come out of the ff lift and had to kick a door off its hinges to get at the riser, which was unserviced, then up the staircase to be greeted by another locked door. With it's direction of opening it would be extremely hard to kick/break open.

It would seem that the AI needed some extra knowledge of the use of a firefighting stair, and the occupiers needed to know that they should not alter the ff corridor, and the managing agent should have been aware of the need to service the riser.

Is it AI's loosening standards to be more competitive, i.e. "I will give the client what they want"? And why as a fire authority can we not simply say "no, 2 staircases please!"

[shaunmckeever]

I am involved in the design of a mixed use building (offices and retail) where the client wants a single staircase. It is 8 floors above ground. Initially I dissuaded the client from using a single staircase. I spoke to the AI involved and he said that he agreed with me. This was some weeks ago. I have come under intense pressure from the client to consider an engineered approach so I have proposed a life safety sprinkler system, L1 detection and one or two other features. Today I met with the AI to discuss my thoughts and was aghast when he said he would accept without sprinkelrs! I suspect the client has been on to him. It concerns me greatly that some AI's are performing more of a consultancy role.

[AFD]

It's basic market forces if you do not get what you want you will take your business elsewhere, ask the big developers !  In my opinion no organisation in any field of approval or enforcement for health and safety issues should have a profit incentive in any form !

[kurnal]

Who in their right mind is going to put their name to a fire risk assessment of these buildings?
When doing a risk assessment in an old converted building I often relate the tale of the visitor to Dublin who asked a passer by for directions to Kilcarney and was told- "well If I was you I wouldn't start out from here". But there can be no excuse for this in a new build.

The Approved Inspector system will get a bad name and it will result in their own demise as action is taken to take control back into government control. 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.

[PhilB]

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.

[CivvyFSO]

Would be a nice kick in the teeth for some AI who has lowered standards just to get the work, if we turn up after the fact and enforce the provision of another staircase/sprinklers etc?

[Mike Buckley]

Great! a turf war between Building Control and the FRS with a RP in the middle trying to keep the business running. The only winners will be the lawyers (again!).

[wee brian]

Yes but somebody has to do it or the whole system will fall apart.

If a client is dum enough to get Building Regs approval through the back door then he deserves all the grief he gets.

Now would be a good time to stick the boot in.