Responsible Persons/ Relevant person - opinions please.

[kurnal]

Have carried out a risk assessment in a former cinema where the owner uses the former projection room as his own office. No other person has access to this room which is a nightmare of a place, access via numerous other rooms and staircases past all sorts of obstructions - the route is only 300mm wide at one point as a result of previous alterations to the licenced area.
Fire officer has recommended smoke detection to the route and said provided only the owner has access there is nothing he can do about it. I think the Responsible person / Owner is also a relevant person and needs adequate standard of fire safety.
Any views please?

[PhilB]

"relevant persons" means—

(a) any person (including the responsible person) who is or may be lawfully on the premises;...

answer complete Sir.

So relevant person includes the RP, the owner ...his Mummy....anyone.

Fire officer is misguided...is that polite??

But a risk assessment may allow less preventive & protective measures if he is able bodied, familiar. etc

Blimey I'm on 666 posts....is that an Omen???

[Midland Retty]

I would reply but the demonic sinister evil signals emmitting from PhilB's post forbid me from doing so.

If he grows horns and starts spitting fire he may get mistaken for a rookie Inspecting Officer. By the way they tell me that a chrome  trident is very "en vogue" at the moment Mr Barry , plus it would match your eyes.

Just don't use your new devil like persona to inflict discomfort on dear old Colin Todd.

Annnnyway back to the subject in hand.

The fact you  have to pass through several access rooms to reach the office is of concern, but then again a projectionist would have been in the same predicament when it was a cinema.

AFD will help this situation to some degree but it's not ideal, the 300mm access point you mention seems ominous but then again we've all seen the little doors / hatches / cat flaps some projectionist had to use in older cinema theatres.

I think all in all if the occupant is able bodied, doesnt have visitor entering his office then is there a major issue?

Petrol juggling should be banned in the access rooms however and I would simply ask the RP what he thinks he is doing in a pokie office like that

Oh I don't know what Im saying - its these small little posers that really make your head hurt the most isn't it!

It's one of those situations which neither looks or sounds right and doesn't sit well with us fire safety types. But  in reality is there significant risk to our chappie in his bizarre office set up?

Im off now to have counselling for the bad karma bestowed on me by PhilB's trident of doom and Kurnal's inextricably mind blowing office scenario. Office in a cinema projetion office?, extra narrow escape routes? whatever next? a concert hall inside a toilet accessed from a cat flap ?

[messy]

I'd also ask the Fire Officer (as he thinks the Resp Person is not a relevant person), what about electricians, builders, decorators and cleaners that may need to service that area - are they not relevant persons either??

[Ricardo]

What about himself Mr fire officer when he is there, he must know that he is a relevent person,unless of course he has no lawfull right to be there, and the postman delivering the mail, or even just a passerby, the only people I thought were not relevent in such cases were firefighters attending a fire or other emergency and the burgler.

[kurnal]

Yes Ricardo its the burglars fault all along- cos after his visit the manager bricked his door up leaving the route I described. Quite funny really cos if ever he wants a new office chair or PC monitor he will have to take the wall down.
Right said Fred!

Common sense will prevail I hope and we will get a door put back in. In the old days I would have had the section 10 pad out. Just a bit dissapointing that the local fire bobby told him to put a few domestic smoke detectors up.

[lingmoor]

"Just a bit dissapointing that the local fire bobby told him to put a few domestic smoke detectors up."

Just as a matter of interest Kurnal what in your opinion should he have told them to do? ...seeing some on here think it's not ideal but ok anyway

[kurnal]

He should have served a prohibition no doubt at all. Travel distance in a dead end situation is currently of the order of 60 metres and it is necessary to pass through 4 rooms including a store, bar servery and bar and ascend an unprotected accommodation stair from first to second floor level before descending to ground level.

This is what I have recommended
In the immediate term:
•   An additional smoke detector should be sited on the lounge bar ceiling.
•   The side of the bar and partition  restricts the width of the access and escape route to 300mm and should be temporarily  removed.
•   The store room door at the foot of the stairs should be kept shut and a further smoke detector installed therein.
•   The window looking out onto the canopy should be made to open and a short set of step should be provided for use in climbing out of the window onto the first floor concrete canopy in an emergency if other routes are cut off.
•   The roller shutter protecting the ground floor fire exit should be opened whenever the office is occupied.
•   Staff and contractors using the office should only be on a needs basis and should  be made aware of these arrangements

The former doorway between the office and the staircase should be re-opened as soon as possible and arrangements made to make the route passable to a final exit.

[Ricardo]

Kurnal, out on interest, what has been his response to your recommendations, has it been like so many others, that if that costs a packet I aint doing half of it,  as you say maybe he needs to get that door back in and improve his security measures as well to stop this naughty burglar cooming back, and as for the fire officer seeming to just turn a blind eye I find that shocking, there seems little point now you even pointing out to the owner that the fire mannie could take action against him, also out of interest did this owner ask you in after a fire audit, or did you see the fire officer during your visit, or is this what the owner has told you?

Because PhilB is correct, I also believe the owner himself here is a relevent person.

[kurnal]

No I have not met the fire officer and am going on what the owner told me.
The fire officer did his audit and told him to carry out a fire risk assessment, install a fire alarm,and immediately  put some domestic smoke alarms on the route to the office.

He did give the owner some expectations as he went- off the cuff but left nothing in writing, said he would be back in a months time.
I was brought in to carry out the fire risk assessment for the owner. He's not very chuffed with me because he thought i would find him some easy answers and in this case there arent any. Theres a lot of issues- means of escape, fire alarm, escape lighting and emergency procedures.

[lingmoor]

Well with all the 'sexy' engineered solutions that sometimes pander to the client and look good on a report maybe sometimes it would be a lot safer for the client and to bite the bullet and just state that the office should not be used. 60 metres one way travel / escape through a window on to a canopy sounds like a nightmare scenario....even with detection

Of course I haven't been there and seen the situation but that would have been very much in my mind.

[Ricardo]

Kurnal

Congratulations on reaching such a significant number of posts, I wonder if we should now have a change of title for you, instead of Kurnal, how about the "General"

[kurnal]

Thanks Ricardo but it is probably a case of never mind the quality feel the width. I must admit some of them come from the hip and on reflection I often am tempted to press the delete button or hope that  someone else will!!!