Access for fire appliances

[kurnal]

A recently completed new housing development of bungalows on a confined site has a central service track of sufficient width  and construction to give access for fire appliances in accordance with ADB  B5, except that it is a blind end of 40m withut a turning head and no prospect of one.  Only on completion has this problem come to light- people are living in their new homes. The BCO is refusing to issue a completion cert.

Clearly one for negotiation and discussion. But would it be reasonable to argue that since the scope of the Building Regulations Functional Requirement B is for life safety, the lack of a turning head, despite being outside the approved document will only be a problem once the fire has been put out and so will not constitute a risk to life safety?

[Tom Sutton]

It looks like you will have an up hill battle on your hands.

However you could ask why an appliance should not have to reverse more than 20M. The only reason I think of is if it has to make an emergency exit which in your situation is pretty unlikely. Also look at all the culs-de-sac through out the country that may have turning circles ideal for a car but no chance of turning an appliance.

[johno67]

However you could ask why an appliance should not have to reverse more than 20M. The only reason I think of is if it has to make an emergency exit which in your situation is pretty unlikely. Also look at all the culs-de-sac through out the country that may have turning circles ideal for a car but no chance of turning an appliance

Could it have something to do with the fact that if they are mobilised to the wrong address or given the wrong information, that they may need to turn the appliance(s) around quickly in order to get to the right location? What would be acceptable 20/40/100m?

[Tom Sutton]

Point accepted johno but if this is happening too often you should be having words with your control. As to the distance, there was times when I would have been happy to reverse an appliance a 100M and others reluctant to reverse 20M.

[nearlythere]

It looks like you will have an up hill battle on your hands.

However you could ask why an appliance should not have to reverse more than 20M. The only reason I think of is if it has to make an emergency exit which in your situation is pretty unlikely. Also look at all the culs-de-sac through out the country that may have turning circles ideal for a car but no chance of turning an appliance.

You also have to look at those new houses with long lanes and no turning areas. Do they still get fire cover?

[johno67]

tw,

I've never known of control sending an appliance to the wrong address through a mistake of theirs. Sometimes callers give the wrong address, calling from mobile phones whilst in passing cars, or seeing the fire from a block of flats a couple of miles away. And occasionally a driver will make a mistake and go to the wrong road.

The distance isn't a problem when reversing under normal circumstances (especially for expert drivers like us ). However it could be a lot more dangerous should it be a persons reported call, with the added urgency of getting turned around and getting to the correct location (reversing pilots getting run over etc). And heaven forbid that there should be another pump and even an aerial appliance parked up behind you.

I personally believe the distances are reasonable and should remain as they are.

[messy]

tw,

I've never known of control sending an appliance to the wrong address through a mistake of theirs.

.

Please tell me this is an ironic post as I have experienced dozens of examples.

[CivvyFSO]

But would it be reasonable to argue that since the scope of the Building Regulations Functional Requirement B is for life safety, the lack of a turning head, despite being outside the approved document will only be a problem once the fire has been put out and so will not constitute a risk to life safety?

No, because there is requirement B5, which is to assist the Fire Service in protecting life and to assist us to gain access.

It is however clearly something for negotiation at this stage. Didn't the BCO comment in the initial stages? If B5 couldn't be met then the FRS should really have been consulted even in a purely residential build.

[BB]

A recently completed new housing development of bungalows on a confined site has a central service track of sufficient width  and construction to give access for fire appliances in accordance with ADB  B5, except that it is a blind end of 40m withut a turning head and no prospect of one.  Only on completion has this problem come to light- people are living in their new homes. The BCO is refusing to issue a completion cert.

Clearly one for negotiation and discussion. But would it be reasonable to argue that since the scope of the Building Regulations Functional Requirement B is for life safety, the lack of a turning head, despite being outside the approved document will only be a problem once the fire has been put out and so will not constitute a risk to life safety?

This is something that the local authority should have had consultation with the relevent Fire & Rescue Service on the initial planning appication stage.

However not all local authorities consult unless they feel there may be a potential problem.

This is the problem when BCO do not have a full apprication of Fire & life Safety.

[johno67]

tw,

I've never known of control sending an appliance to the wrong address through a mistake of theirs.

.

Please tell me this is an ironic post as I have experienced dozens of examples.

Not that I have been aware of. Maybe they cover their mistakes well or there are different standards between controls. Out of interest how did you address this problem, especially as you came across it so often?

[Tom Sutton]

Am I right to assume in this situation that if no access road had been provided and because it appears the bungalows are within 45M of  the main road then access would have been considered satisfactory. Now because an access road has been provided but doesn’t meet the 20M reversing criteria then it is now not satisfactory? Strange!

[jokar]

The 20 metres is a bit of a misnoma.  It is only ther because a horse would not go backwards more then the imperial measurment equivalent of 20 metres.  If a fire appliance driver can not reverse more than 20 metres we have a problem.  What are the chances of a fire occuring or the fire brigade ever going to these premises?  TW you are correct in your assumption  and BB you may be right but Holroyd stated in 1972 that the Building Regs that apply to new builds will always be the reponsibilty of BCO's  and this was made clear again in 1994 by Bickerdike Allen.

I know of a situation on a public road where the crew and an appliance were testing hydrants and horses came the other way.  The riders would not go back and the applinace had to reverse over a mile to get out.

Kurnal there is always the assumption that the fire will be the furthest house but that is not the case.

[CivvyFSO]

I have sorted it for you Kurnal:

Tell the FRS that they should only drive 20m down the road. They are then surely going to be within 45m of all points in the buildings, and they can reverse just 20m to get back out.

Do I win a badge?

I must thank Twsutton for initiating that thought though, so he could get a badge too if there is a spare.

[Tom Sutton]

I want a gold star not a badge. :lol:

[kurnal]

Thanks to all. Civvy and TW your genius is to be applauded but thats where we are starting from. The blind end is only as long as it needs to be to reach all parts of the furthest bungalow within 45m so we have drive to the end of the blind end. Its a village green effect on a long and narrow wedge of land and the fire access is grass crete down the middle. I am hoping to be able to negotiate the 40m on the basis of a wider than necessary strip of grass crete with very gentle curves and a some kind of demarcation of the boundary. And a new hydrant close by.

 It appears to have been seen without comment at planning stage and early BCO consultation but only raised as a problem once the thing had been built.  But I havn't seen all the paperwork yet.