Dry Riser Removal Enquiry

[CivvyFSO]

I would suggest Civvy that the removal of the riser would be a failure to maintain it in an efficient state or efficient working order. There is a slight problem in that failure to comply with Article 38 is only an offence if relevant persons are placed at risk by that failure, and firefighters are not relevant persons.

Indeed. If we can ask for a riser under article 38 then we could still serve the enforcement notice and then not complying with the enforcement notice becomes the offence.

One way of looking at it is: I start up a business and move into the building in question with the riser taken out previously. FSO comes in, notices the lack of a riser and tries to 'do me' under article 38. My defense would be that there is nothing there to maintain or keep in working order, which the article specifically states. In the same way as if I remove an alarm system, he cannot hit me with en enforcement notice to make me test it or keep it in working order. He would have to make me put it back in first under article 13. There is no article to say I must supply a dry riser 'if necessary'. (Just playing devil's advocate and testing the water to see if the argument would stand up really...)

But as I said, it would probably be classed as a necessary part of a firefighting shaft and as such should be easy to enforce.

[Martin Burford]

PhilH
Before I make a response I need a bit more info:
How many floors has this building
Was the installation of a Rising Main done under Building Regs
Not worried about hosereels....they are often a menace causing trip conditions in staircases, being used by untrained people, etc....
Thanks.
Conqueror.

[PhilHallmark]

PhilH
Before I make a response I need a bit more info:
How many floors has this building
Was the installation of a Rising Main done under Building Regs
Not worried about hosereels....they are often a menace causing trip conditions in staircases, being used by untrained people, etc....
Thanks.
Conqueror.

Hi C,

There are 5 floors plus an undercroft (no Riser valves in there) and I can only assume it was installed under the relevant regs of the time of build, mid 70's.
We are working for the FM and direct contact with site can only be through them (contractual agreements) so I cannot verify dates.

Cheers,

Phil

[Martin Burford]

PhilH

Is the lady in question the Responsible Person in the FRA.

To return to the Dry Riser situation.....I would guess that the risers were provided as part of the then Building Regulations. I relation to todays BR [ B 2007]...15.1-8...pages 107... and 16.1-16-11 pages 108-111.
I am not clear as to the height of your building but still think the above must apply.
If this lady is determined to withdraw the Dry Riser then contact your local FRA, as they will be very interested, [ following the Stevanage fire].
I recall when I was a sub.. dry risers were tested regularly by watches as part of a training exercise.. but who knows now in todays Fire Service!
But at the end of the day if this lady is the RP then she is answerable for her actions not you... and as long as your have given satisfactory advice and recorded it, to her, you can do no more than what I have illuminated.. but another strand, if you know the Insurance Company maybe they would like to be appraised of her activities.
Keep me informed on this one.
Conqueror.

[PhilHallmark]

PhilH

Is the lady in question the Responsible Person in the FRA.

To return to the Dry Riser situation.....I would guess that the risers were provided as part of the then Building Regulations. I relation to todays BR [ B 2007]...15.1-8...pages 107... and 16.1-16-11 pages 108-111.
I am not clear as to the height of your building but still think the above must apply.
If this lady is determined to withdraw the Dry Riser then contact your local FRA, as they will be very interested, [ following the Stevanage fire].
I recall when I was a sub.. dry risers were tested regularly by watches as part of a training exercise.. but who knows now in todays Fire Service!
But at the end of the day if this lady is the RP then she is answerable for her actions not you... and as long as your have given satisfactory advice and recorded it, to her, you can do no more than what I have illuminated.. but another strand, if you know the Insurance Company maybe they would like to be appraised of her activities.
Keep me informed on this one.
Conqueror.

Hello Conqueror,

I have already advised the FM and the lady in question (FM H&S Officer - RP) of my concerns and requested she contact her insurors and local fire officers for written permission. I have also raised my concerns as you advice and letf it in her court.
We will not be taking any actions unless written authority has been provided to us.

Many Thanks,

Phil

[Martin Burford]

PhilH
Be cautious and put your concerns , in writing, to her and her insurers, otherwise, well done!!
Conqueror.

[saddlers]

Just a passing observation from an unscrupulous AI (Civvy you really have a bad perception of AI's!!).

The works to remove a dry riser would constitute a material alteration under Building Regulations and would therefore require Building Regulations approval.

The proposal to remove the dry risers would (one assumes) result in the level of compliance being worse than it was prior to the commencment of the works, therefore this would not be able to demonstrate compliance with the Building Regulations (B5 issue), unless the building could demonstrate compliance towards B5 using alternative solutions.

Your local building control section would be interested in such an action, as it would result in a contravention.

The RRO is not the only legislation out there!!

And not all AI's are unscrupulous!!!

[PhilHallmark]

Many thanks to all your replies and assistance.

Phil