Thanks for your help Civvy. Some of these issues are lost in the mist of time and this forum is often the only available sounding board.
The lift is easily dealt with. I came across it on a risk assessment and told the RP to bring it to the attention of the fire service and the lift maintenance company. The fire service have been contacted and aren't concerned- the building has only one floor above 18m. Job done.
The warehouse is a different matter and its down to those dratted local enactments - most of which are still in force despite the RR(FS) Order which embraced some elements of local enactments- eg neon signs, but left in place many other local ennactments - including some that controlled large storage buildings greater than 7000m3 (ie tiny by todays standards) and control of stacks of combustible materials. A recent determination by the secretary of state showed these elemnts of the local enactments to be very much alive and kicking. As you say, some of these incorprorated provisions for maintenance, others did not.
As you suggest it comes down to the risk assessment - my risk assessment of this fairly small warehouse of about 10000m2 (used for the storage and distribution of government publicity materials in the main) is that for life safety of relevant persons there is no requirement for a sprinkler system. Why? Because in determining a benchmark level for ALARP I used the relevant documents and guidance including BS5588 part 11 (relevant at the time of the assessment), the fire certificate standards (formerly in force under the previous regime) and the new National Guidance for Factories and Warehouses. I also referred to ADB though this is clearly not relevant in the case of existing buildings, but is a benchmark for new buildings.
I did point out the benefits of sprinklers but also pointed out the difficulties involved in recommissioning and upgrading this long decommissioned system.
So far the brigade has visited and issued a letter of non compliance (which the client thought was an enforcement notice). The letter requires that the sprinkler system be reinstated within 3- 6 months. This may or may not develop into an enforcement notice later. Time will tell.
The crux is this. In carrying out a fire risk assessment under the RR(FS)O the duty is to reduce the risk to relevant persons to ALARP. But what does this mean? The document "Reducing Risks, protecting people" published by the HSE recognises that for existing buildings it is appropriate that best practice guidance should be used as a benchmark, rather than the legal judgement arising from the case of Edwards Vs NCB (quantum of risk measured against sacrifice).
Quoting from the document
"....Moreover, HSE believes that in making this compliance assessment, the starting point for
determining whether risk has been reduced as low as reasonably practicable, should be the
present situation in the duty holder’s undertaking. However, in certain circumstances, it will
not be possible to assess options in this way. In such situations, the starting point should be
an option which is known to be reasonably practicable (such as one which represents
existing good practice)........"
We have best practice guidance with national coverage. In some areas we have local enactments that prescribe different standards of fire safety for different purposes. My view is that Article 38 should not be used to enforce local enactments.
