Fire Fighters as Relevant Persons

[Tall Paul]

Having read, along with my colleagues, the latest edition of the B Doc, I was pleased to note under Raised Storage Areas the following note:
"Note 2:  The maximum dimensions provided above have been set in order to limit the distance that firefighters may need to travel...to effect a rescue"  Of course B5 continues to provide for fire fighter access, and Article 38 (1) provides for the maintenance of measures provided for protection of fire-fighters.

The difficulty that I have is with buildings that have had an unprotected extensive raised storage platform installed which exceeds the acceptable limits, carried out without building control input and installed more than 12 months ago.

Building control powers become more limited and article 38 does not apply because the measures had not been provided in the first place.

Under these circumstances the FSO becomes powerless to assist, provided travel distances are ok for occupants, because firefighters cannot be included as relevant persons.

It appears strange that at a time when legislative guides are becoming more congruant that such a gap has been allowed to form between pre-build and post-build legislation.  Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

[kurnal]

I see where you are coming from Paul but  cant understand why you say the issue is beyond the remit of the FSO?  
I would have thought that the fire safety order gives the FSO ideal powers to act even taking into account the definition of relevant persons as prescribed in the order - the FSO will review the Responsible person's risk assessment which should set out why this extended, unprotected,  and occupied mezzanine  is safe for use by the relevant persons despite being outside any of the National Guidance documents, and if not satisfied take enforcement action - which will indirectly improve the safety of the firefighters. I think any situation that you could come up with as placing firefighters at risk would also place the relevant persons at risk and so can be controlled using the order as it stands. Including the maintenance of facilities and access for firefighters.

It would be unrealistic for the Responsible Person to be accountable for the safety of firefighters as they will be working entirely beyond the control or influence of the RP- he does not even have the authoriy to tell them their services are not required or not to enter his premises.

[saddlers]

Kurnal,
I agree the principle made me stop and think, but when you think about the logic of it the FRS could potentially be rescuing relevant persons, and a shortfall in this area must surely fall under the remit of the FSO should it not?

I would also add that because it is located under B3 in ADB, that it is in relation to stability of the building during the escape period for occupants and not just for the fire service access despite the comment in the new ADB (which I believe was just added to ensure this factor was considered). Therefore again this would be applicaple o the relevant persons' safety even if Building Control did not enforce.

[Tall Paul]

I understand your view points.  However a reasonable distance for the run of the mill relevant person may be far greater in certain purpose groups than the distance that would be reasonable for a firefighter to travel on a structure that has potentially been made unstable as a result of fire.  The FSO provides for persons moving under their own steam or with assistance where necessary... but does not really provide for injured persons, as opposed to those with known mobility difficulties.  The B Doc on the other hand does.

We are increasingly encountering large raised areas that have not been put before Building Control and are starting to raise questions.

Paul

[kurnal]

Yes there are thousands of mezzanines that have been slipped in without approval, one of the biggest abuses is overlooking the fact that the relaxation on fire resistance to the elements of structure is only intended for storage mezzs NOT for occupied mezz.

[Mr. P]

Could any of this be included under Adequate Fire Safety Measures for FF's under RR(FS)O?

[CivvyFSO]

I would say no. We can only control things that are already in place to protect firefighters. The only tenuous link is the mention of the word "premises" in article 38(1) but I cannot see how that could be used to make anyone protect a mezz from fire.

We have operational liaison procedures whereby if I saw something that constituted a risk to firefighters I would fill in a form that goes off to mobilising and to the local station informing them of the risk. If there is something like a large unprotected mezz that I believed could be a risk then it may be the case that firefighters are told not to go on or even underneath it.

With regards rescue work, how likely is it that anyone could be stuck on the mezz? Surely with suitable travel distances and early warning the mezz would surely be unoccupied by the time FRS arrive? If travel distances are over the limits and a RA shows that it will only be used as storage then anyone going onto the mezz is mobile and capable of evacuating the mezz immediately. If you are thinking of someone injuring themselves and getting stuck at the same time as a fire starting, that seems almost akin to assuming 2 fires could start at the same time. (Possible I suppose but highly unlikely)

I could be completely missing the point here, but it doesn't seem like too much of a problem that can't be controlled if treated properly. I would be going for early warning under the mezz though, because even as storage relevant persons have to use it.

Feel free to educate me if I have totally missed the point.

[wee brian]

The reason we have requirement B5 in the building regs is because people do sometimes get trapped despite there being adequate means of escape. Its not unusual for a fire to start as part of some sort of accident.

The fire resistance of a floor is provided to ensure both means of escape and the saefty of firefighters when carryong out search and rescue.  

Its one thing to protect a structure when its built. Its quite another to do it retrospectively. Just cos ADB asks for something it doesnt follow that the risk in an occupied premises justifies an upgrade. We need to consider the actual circumstances of the building in use.

[Ken Taylor]

I share something of Kurnals' experience of 'slipped in' mezzanines. I can recall a certain educational establishment where they taught building skills and had used the students to construct numerous mezzanine type additional floors with mixtures of storage and working areas - all without any appreciable protection or adequate provision for MoE. Other discovered storage mezzanines have become workplaces - some without proper edge protection or safe access/egress in addition to fire considerations.

[Tall Paul]

CivvyFSO, we have a similar means of exchanging information with operational personnel where risks to their safety are identified - and that is the approach that I take... I just felt that this was an interesting discussion point as I am having to complete these forms on an increasingly frequent basis.

Paul