Disgreements between BCO's and FSO's

[AM]

We're dealing with a conversion of an old building into flats, and have been developing a fire strategy and making alterations based upon Building Control's comments and are now at a stage where the BCO is happy that the functional objectives of the Building Regs have been met. The comments have come back from the fire service, and they are not happy with it at all, as there are some sections that are not compliant with ADB, but the BCO and ourselves are satisfied that there are sufficient fire safety measures in the building.

So, we are at an impasse, and the FSO will not meet with us to explain the strategy as he won't be happy unless changes are made so there's no point.

Now that the stat. bar has been lifted, the client is getting nervous that, even though the building has BR approval, that there could be consequences in relation to the RRO. If BR regs are met, and a risk assessment is produced, what level of confidence can we offer to the client regarding action taken by the fire service, and is the attitude of the FSO unreasonable? Are there any suggestions as to how this can be progressed.

[nearlythere]

We're dealing with a conversion of an old building into flats, and have been developing a fire strategy and making alterations based upon Building Control's comments and are now at a stage where the BCO is happy that the functional objectives of the Building Regs have been met. The comments have come back from the fire service, and they are not happy with it at all, as there are some sections that are not compliant with ADB, but the BCO and ourselves are satisfied that there are sufficient fire safety measures in the building.

So, we are at an impasse, and the FSO will not meet with us to explain the strategy as he won't be happy unless changes are made so there's no point.

Now that the stat. bar has been lifted, the client is getting nervous that, even though the building has BR approval, that there could be consequences in relation to the RRO. If BR regs are met, and a risk assessment is produced, what level of confidence can we offer to the client regarding action taken by the fire service, and is the attitude of the FSO unreasonable? Are there any suggestions as to how this can be progressed.

Can't see what the problem is if BC are satisfied with it. Has it meant that BC has to now reject it? You may have to make some sort of formal appeal to the F&R Service on the matter. Ask for their appeals procedure for dealing with matters such as this and use it.

[kurnal]

Are you clear where you are in the Building Regs Approvals process?
Has the completion cert been issued yet? If not then the protocol is that the BCO still holds responsibility for the project and  should consider the fire authorities comments which he may or may not act on. If he does not take on board their comments and the Fire service have concerns, their argument is with the BCO and not the client.

Perhaps the BCO has not been clear where he stands on this and in making a response to the FSO. It is the BCOs job to initiate any discussions with the FSO at this stage.
In accordance with protocols it isn't down to the client to lead discussions with the FSO whilst the BCO is still considering his position. Thats perhaps why they appear unhelpful. Its in nobodys interests to be considering fire enforcement in a new building immediately on completion. If that happens someones not done their job right for which litigation may follow.

[jokar]

An FSO has no control over the Building Regs approval.  Article 45 of the Order gives consultation details only and that is what the BCO has to do.  Holroyd and then Bickerdike Allen made and kept the distinction that new builds are the responsibility of the Local Authority/Approved Inspector and existing buildings belong to the FRS.  The Governments procedural Guidnace states quite clearly what has to occur.  If the BCO is happy to issue a completion certificate then that is the end of the matter.  If the FRS come back after then there is an appeal procedure and I can not see any magistrate going against the BCO who is the approval officer.

[AM]

BR approval is not the main concern, it's what enforcement action could the FSO take once the building is occupied, which is making the client nervous. The fire strategy will form the basis of the risk assessment, and if there is major disagreements over it with the FSO, could this not cause problems once the building is occupied?

[nearlythere]

If the development is in accordance with BR and certified by the enforcement authority as such I would think the F&R Service would have an extremely weak if not worthless case for trying to impose further structural features.
The F&R Service may not be happy with compliance with ADB but would it pass the conditions contained in the risk assessment guidance document?

[CivvyFSO]

Are you sure that the BCO has accepted that it meets the functional requirements? I deal with consultations here that have glaring errors, where in the cover letter the BCO has pretty much said it is ok. This is because some (Not all) BCO/AI's seem to leave the finer details of B doc to the fire service to pick out, and often just agree with what they say. (Let us do the ADB part of them almost) This is blatantly wrong procedure, but it is the way it happens with certain bodies.

[CivvyFSO]

AM, can you give any details of the disagreement?

[nearlythere]

Are you sure that the BCO has accepted that it meets the functional requirements? I deal with consultations here that have glaring errors, where in the cover letter the BCO has pretty much said it is ok. This is because some (Not all) BCO/AI's seem to leave the finer details of B doc to the fire service to pick out, and often just agree with what they say. (Let us do the ADB part of them almost) This is blatantly wrong procedure, but it is the way it happens with certain bodies.

Good point. I certainly have experience of this. I believe that most BC offices have a policy of letting the F&R Service deal with the Fire Safety issues. This is because mostly BC don't know the first thing about FS and they don't need to know because it is done for them.
The only time you have a good FS input into BC consultations is because someone in the office has an interest in Fire Safety. In NI I could count one. One person that is.

[AM]

AM, can you give any details of the disagreement?

Other than a few issues with travel distances (10m instead of 7.5m), the main thrust is that the FSO wants to apply BS 5588 pt 10 to a mixed use development (retail on ground, resi above) because the shop fronts are recessed back to form a covered walkway (open on three sides). The response says "It could be argued that 5588 pt 10 applies...", but that means it could be argued that it doesn't. The comments have been passed to the BCO as 'observations' under the procedural guidance, it should therefore be up to the BCO to decide which standards apply, shouldn't it?

As I mentioned, the strategy has been developed with input from the BCO over the last 18 months, and it was passed to Fire Service for comment when he was satisfied with it, in line with the PG, not becasue he was deferring to the FSO due to lack of experience.

[nearlythere]

AM, can you give any details of the disagreement?

Other than a few issues with travel distances (10m instead of 7.5m), the main thrust is that the FSO wants to apply BS 5588 pt 10 to a mixed use development (retail on ground, resi above) because the shop fronts are recessed back to form a covered walkway (open on three sides). The response says "It could be argued that 5588 pt 10 applies...", but that means it could be argued that it doesn't. The comments have been passed to the BCO as 'observations' under the procedural guidance, it should therefore be up to the BCO to decide which standards apply, shouldn't it?

As I mentioned, the strategy has been developed with input from the BCO over the last 18 months, and it was passed to Fire Service for comment when he was satisfied with it, in line with the PG, not becasue he was deferring to the FSO due to lack of experience.

It sounds like maybe the FSO is only putting forward what you have said - "observations". I would suggest that as BC are the enforcement authority they will make their own determination and probably the FSO will be satisfied with that.

[CivvyFSO]

It seems to me that someone doesn't have a good understanding of part 10 and the risks it is intended to deal with. There is no way that part 10 should be used in these circumstances.

The 10m instead of 7.5m is reasonable to argue against in the resi corridors as it can be linked to visibility levels, and how far people are willing to travel in smoke. It is simply a case of 'where do you draw the line'? 10m? 12m? 15m?

[Deadendburied]

To some extent the details of the disagreement are not important.

This is a consultation process, not negotiation.  Once the BCO/AI is satisfied with the scheme, they consult the Fire Authority for their views on compliance with the Building Regulations.  On receipt of those observations the BCO/AI has 2 options:
1. Consider the comments, determine they have been addressed or have no validity and approve the scheme, or
2. Consider the comments to be valid and advise the applicant how they can be addressed.

If the BCO/AI feels the need to secure the agreement of the Fire Authority before they approve the scheme, I suspect that your clients fears that there could be difficulties in meeting the legal requirements of the Fire Safety Order may be well founded.