Public House

[jasper]

Hi all, a friend of mine has just purchased a lease on a local pub, the pub holds around 100 occupants and he is in the process of moving in upstairs with his wife, I know that the risk of ignition has reduced now that the smoking ban is in force but does he still need automatic detection? secondly who would be responsible if so? (him or the brewery) as he has just forked out a lot of money for the lease

[stevefire52]

I will be very interested to see the varied views regarding this subject. As a fire authority inspecting officer who has had numerous dealings with a number of different brewery's on this subject these are my thoughts
AFD in the pub area that is down to a fire risk assessment
Is the sleeping accomodation above a private single dwelling if so the fire legislation doesn't apply
Breweries have all sorts of lease  agreements which are very complicated to decide who is the responsible person
and I suppose case law will eventually decide.
Majority of the old type pubs the means of escape from the upper floors is through the pub so even though the rooms above may be a  single private dwelling I would want detection in the pub, if it can be enforceable thats another question.
Do the Brewery have a moral duty to ensure hat the means of escape is reasonable before they  lease the building out... I think so.
Every brewery firm so far we have challenged have done the work requested with little or no fuss but they dont like it. These are my personal views and I would like to see what the experts say. Sorry I have not got all the answers for you.

[wee brian]

Steve has summarised the issue perfectly - it depends on the terms of the lease and the contractural relationship with the brewery.

The odds are that your pal is "the employer" for the bar staff. In which case he is responsible for their safety. However if he hasnt got control of the premises (IE the lease wont allow him to make alterations) then it all gets a bit complicated. The law requires that the various parties co-operate and all of them could be prosecuted for failing to do so.

Who actually pays for the work is a contractural thing between your pal and the brewery. His solicitor should have explained this to him when he took the lease. (its on a bit of paper somewhere probably).

[jasper]

the upstairs used to be used for b&B purposes but now it will be a single family dwelling, the escape route is indeed through the pub downstairs (hence my concern)

[Dragonmaster]

There are a number of threads already discussing the Relevant Person concept, and any fire starting in the pub can affect the people sleeping above (the Responsible Person is also a Relevant Person) therefore i would expect to find either suitable means of detecting and warning of a fire and a suitably protected means of escape, or good (1hr) fire separation and a separate means of access/egress.

If the accommodation is accessed via the pub, typically the back of the bar, the risk to those above increases dramatically, and there may be a case for prohibiting one or other of the uses (commercial or sleeping), but again we come back to the terms of lease.

One method i use is to find out what happens to the takings. If they go into your pal's bank account and he then pays the brewery, then he may not be an employee, and therefore the upstairs is a domestic premises. If, on the other hand, the money goes into the brewery bank account, and he then draws a wage, he is an employee, and if required to sleep on the premises as part of the lease, then i would consider the RRO to apply upstairs as well.

[PhilB]

A lot of people seem to be using this term 'single private dwelling' it has absolutely no relevance here.

If the living accommodation is domestic premises which in my opinion it is the order does not apply regardless of whether or not it privately owned or used as a domestic premises for an employee.

Look at the definition of domestic premises it is quite clear, if it is used as a dwelling and no-one shares it, it is domestic and the order does not apply.

Because it is domestic, no requirements can be made within the private area, but the persons in there are relevant persons so the risk assessment of the pub must take them into account.

The only premises that cannot be served with a prohibition notice are premises consisting of or comprised in a house that is occupied as a single private dwelling...that is the only...I repeat ONLY!!!!!  time that the term single private dwelling has any relevance. i.e. you cannot prohibit the use of a house used as a single private dwelling.

But the flat, hmo, privately owned private accomodation in any building other than a house...can be prohibited or restricted.

Whether or not detection is required depends on the outcome of the risk assessment. Is there adequate separation between the pub and the domestic premises, does the means of escape from the domestic premises pass through the pub?

[jokar]

PhilB you keep repeating yourself on this forum, much to my amusement, and some take no notice.  I agree totally with your comments.  Through the fire risk assessment you have to take cognisance of relevant people and in this case those in the domestic premises are indeed relevant.  What the Rp needs to do about them is dependent on the outcomes of the FRA and whether the RP wants to take note of them or live with the risk that the hazrads may cause.  Whatever, it is the RP responsibilty as the Onus in Article 34 is on that defined company, individual etc.

[PhilB]

PhilB you keep repeating yourself on this forum, much to my amusement, and some take no notice.  I agree totally with your comments.  Through the fire risk assessment you have to take cognisance of relevant people and in this case those in the domestic premises are indeed relevant.  What the Rp needs to do about them is dependent on the outcomes of the FRA and whether the RP wants to take note of them or live with the risk that the hazrads may cause.  Whatever, it is the RP responsibilty as the Onus in Article 34 is on that defined company, individual etc.

Thanks Jokar, I think repeating yourself is part of the ageing process...also I often find myself climbing the stairs and then forgetting what I went up for....happy days!

[The Colonel]

Well guys I am glad to see that we agree that who ever lives upstairs are relevent persons and that thier safety must be taken into account and with the smoking ban I would always go for automatic detection involving smoke detectors to at least give early warning and a chance to get moving.


About 7/8 years ago when a FSO we did a risk assessment of all of the premises we had files on based on local knowledge and the contents of the file and guess what came very close to highest risk group "Pub" because many have no afd, e/l and most escape routes were through the bars with no alternate routes. Just to back things up we had 3 serious fires in pubs in less than a year, but people dont take any notice as many are still the same.

Worked recently at two pubs, one had been served with a prohibition notce for amongst other things lack of AFD and fire seperation between the bars on ground and 1st floors and the managers living accomodation on 2nd floor. watch for the prosecution on this one. The other being a pub in a small market town where the stairs to two family flats (owner & Mother in Law) on 1st & 2nd floors was open into the bar, good job there was an alternate route but had no hesitation as a result of the risk assessment in recommending AFD

[Jim Creak]

Regardless of what the law says, regardless of RP, Nominated Persons etc etc etc Early Detection makes sense, the more comprehensive, robust and effective system possible. Why because the Risk Data tells us this type of business is prone to FIRE. We have had smoking material discarded by staff after hours? We have had arson attack by angry clients, we have had spontaneous ignition in dry cleaned table linen, we have had numerous electrical fires plus countless chimney and kitchen fires. Pubs have high risk status, sleeping plus Alcohol a deadly combination.

[kurnal]

A lot of people seem to be using this term 'single private dwelling' it has absolutely no relevance here.

Phil these are absolutely vital definitions and thanks for keeping us on the right track.  

By the way I quite like your anorak - its very similar to one of mine ....

....but I often make the mistake of calling mine a kagoule  

[AM]

About 7/8 years ago when a FSO we did a risk assessment of all of the premises we had files on based on local knowledge and the contents of the file and guess what came very close to highest risk group "Pub" because many have no afd, e/l and most escape routes were through the bars with no alternate routes. Just to back things up we had 3 serious fires in pubs in less than a year, but people dont take any notice as many are still the same.

We did a similar exercise, and it was determined that the property type with the highest liklihood of fire was a licensed premises, and even though the smoking ban will have reduced the risk of ignition a bit, it was found that faults in fridges and having open fires that weren't swept properly were as much of a risk.

[jokar]

The Colonel, again I am interested in how a FRS can issue a Prohibition Notice on a premises for FA systems, that is very little to do with means of escape.  Enforcement I can understand.

[PhilB]

The Colonel, again I am interested in how a FRS can issue a Prohibition Notice on a premises for FA systems, that is very little to do with means of escape.  Enforcement I can understand.

If the lack of adequate fire warning means that the risk in case of fire is so serious a prohibition notice could be served...why do you think that would be a problem?

[The Colonel]

Joker. The prohibition notice was issued for the following reasons
Lack of staff training
inadequate systems to control occupancy levels
Fire risk assessment not suitable and sufficent
Fire alarm panel in fault
Emergency lighting not working effectivly
Inadequate structural fire ptrotection to second floor sleeping accomodation
Fire exit on 2nd floor not openable without key
AFD not adequte to protect those sleeping on premises
Lack of manual call points on alarm
Exit routes blocked by rubbish.

Quite a good place really, notice has now been lifted but still work in progress. Yes not just alarm but other things as well

In the past I have had problems with lack of alarms or sound levels when in the service and recieved full backing from senior officers when it came down to prohibiting or restricting use of premises.

Just done a risk assessment on a premise with resturant and kitchen on ground floor and B&B on 1st,2nd and 3rd floor and was amazed to find good standard of afd exept for ground floor where there was none. The owners were surpised, just goes to show what they knew, but were even more surprised that I should strongly recommened no sleeping upstairs until the afd was sorted on ground and cellar. They had an enginneer visit that day to get things going.