Wooden storage cabinet kept within a protected escape stairwell.

[Rocha]

I wonder if anyone has advice on this fire safety issue.  

I have been to a site where the managing agents keep a wooden cabinet (6ft high by 4ft wide) at the base of the main fire escape stairwell (two other escape stairwells are provided) to store the security personels belongings, high vis jackets, and cones etc (mainly general combustibles).

The wooden cabinet does not compromise the width of the escape route and does not obstuct MCP's or fire fighting equipment etc.  However I have recomended that the wooden cabinet be removed from the protected escape stairwell as it introduces combustibles to this required sterile area cretaing an uneccesary hazard and resulting risk.

Alternatively I have recomended that the wooden cabinet be replaced with a non combustible locker/cabinet as mentioned in the Offices & Shops FSRRO guide.

The managing agent disagrees with my view and states that it has been there for 5 years and does not constitute any more risk at present.  However, this is the 1st time I have been to this site and apparently this is the first time it has been raised.

I would welcome any advice please.

Rocha

[Paul2886]

You are quite right to draw this to their attention. Any combustibles stored on an escape route should be secured and locked in a structure affording 30 minutes fire resistance.
You have done your job by highlighting this problem and now the RP must stand of fall by their decision if they choose to ignore.
This is even more a problem if the cupboard can be accessed by members of the general public coming and going from the building. Discarded cigarette ends, arson etc

[kurnal]

You are both applying the general rule and national  guidance and nothing can go wrong if the management follow your advice.
It is permissible to apply a risk assessment approach to the situation though. If it is not the only staicase serving part of the building, if the public are not admitted, if the risk within the cupboard can be controlled, if there is adequate supervision, if there are no ignition sources in the vicinity and above all if the responsible person in a position to control, monitor and maintain the situation then it would probably be fine. After all even approved document B recommends that we allow a small reception office of up to 10m2 to be created  within a protected staircase as long as  it is not the only stair in the building

[PhilB]

Quite agree with Kurnal. If the only stair I would be concerned.

[Ken Taylor]

I've tended to be happier in this sort of scenario when the cupboard or cabinet can be properly closed and kept locked so as to fully contain the contents rather than being open-fronted or so full of readily combustible items that you can't close the doors or drawers. There is also the risk that, when the thing becomes full, an adjacent  supplementary pile of storage appears. Good management and 'housekeeping' are particularly important where stairways are considered as storage space.

[Paul2886]

Kurnal and PhilB....Surely we have to look further than just whether it has an alternative staircase. What type of seperation is there between the stairs, and is the area of the cupboard in question equipped with detection.
The original message talked of it being the main staircase where people unfamiliar with the premises will aim for if the fire alarm activated.
He will therefore need to look at fire exit signage to the alternative final exit, emergency lighting, how many people may be using the building at any one time, where the alternative exit or staircase discharges to.
I'm sure these will be just general considerations but just trying to expand on the subject.

[kurnal]

Bang on Paulm
Just making the point that whilst we have to have a simple set of rules and guidance, the rules are not absolutely set in stone and its ok to do things a different way so long as we achieve an equivalent level of safety.

[Fishy]

I think the key here is the simplicity of the risk reduction measure that could be applied.  It's a relatively small risk we're discussing, but the solution appears simple - get rid of a hazard within what is supposed to be a protected location (i.e. move the cupboard).  

If this can be done straightforwardly and at little or no cost, it then offers compliance with good industry practice and it should be done - small risk or not.

[Paul2886]

Fishy...Think you may have missed the points made. Read from the first message as it says the RP won't act on the advice to remove the cupboard which prompted further considerations by forum members.
The points are to highlight that it is not always as simple as just going along with the codes. Its the bigger picture that needs to be looked at in some of these situations.

[Big T]

The original message talked of it being the main staircase where people unfamiliar with the premises will aim for if the fire alarm activated.
He will therefore need to look at fire exit signage to the alternative final exit, emergency lighting, how many people may be using the building at any one time, where the alternative exit or staircase discharges to.
I'm sure these will be just general considerations but just trying to expand on the subject.

With regard to the above, All of these elements should be addressed as part of the risk assessment. This issue should make no difference to the way in which the signage and discharge of alternative escapes is managed.

What in your opinion is the likely hood of an ignition source being introduced? That is key. The combustibles are unlikely to spontaneously combust. (i said unlikely not impossible) And at present they pose no obstructions.

If the area is secured, no signs of clandestine smoking, no portable heaters etc etc, then from a risk assessed perspective the risk has been minimised as far as is reasonably practicable. You have noted the combustible hazard, removed all sources of ignition and to reduce it any lower you would have to remove the cupboard which isn't a viable option for the managing agents.

[Pip]

'After all even approved document B recommends that we allow a small reception office of up to 10m2 to be created  within a protected staircase as long as  it is not the only stair in the building'

True,a few questions for debate:
when this was first allowed,what was in mind?a phone and a diary etc,or computers,printers and shelves of files?What area does the 10m square cover-just an open desk area,or the 'seating' for waiting visitors area as well?

[Fishy]

Fishy...Think you may have missed the points made. Read from the first message as it says the RP won't act on the advice to remove the cupboard which prompted further considerations by forum members.
The points are to highlight that it is not always as simple as just going along with the codes. Its the bigger picture that needs to be looked at in some of these situations.

No - I don't think that I have.  The guides to the RR(FS)O say that corridors and stairways that form part of escape routes should be kept "clear and hazard-free".   This appears easy to do, in this case, by removing the storage.

What is generally accepted in H&S law is that you should be able to demonstrate that you achieve a level of risk equivalent to a 'code-compliant' arrangement - but you have a choice how to do this.  If you can argue equivalence by other means, then that is likely to be acceptable.  In this case there doesn't appear to be an 'equivalence' argument - the hazard is there with no obvious control.  So - the 'managing agent' appears to be on a sticky wicket by refusing to put in place a simple, low-to-zero cost risk reduction measure, against an identified hazard.  That's the line I would take with them.

By the way - we all appear to be assuming the managing agent is the RP.  They may not be - presumably there are one or more other employers in the building, any or all of whom could be RPs.

[Chris Houston]

The managing agent disagrees with my view and states that it has been there for 5 years and does not constitute any more risk at present.

You are right to ask for its removal and I would do the same.

Just because something hasn't killed someone for 5 years, doesn't make it safe - ask them to justify why they will not move it.  If we follow their logic, why not only do fire safety risk assessment in places where people have been killed in the past 5 years.  Daftys.

That said, I would agree that there are situations where we will accept things in escape routes, but I'd want to hear a very strong arguement why.