Before the bulldozer arrives...

[A J]

Evening all,

A purpose built halfway house accomodation block for single mothers, built in the early 70's is in the process of being closed down and the tenants re housed in new flats. The halfway house has fire doors fitted on the flats (5)  emergency lighting and automatic detection in the common areas. However, there is small integral boiler room (cupboard) which contains a gas fired boiler which is regulary serviced. The door to this room is not fire resisting.
Would it be acceptable given that the building is protected by other fire preventitive measures  and that it will soon close and be bulldozed,not to fit a fire resisting door to the boier room?

your thoughts will be much appriciated.   

[kurnal]

How many floors are there? 2 floors may be considered fairly low risk especially if window escape is possible. Higher buildings are more risky.

Is it a balanced flue boiler?  Domestic type boiler or something bigger?

Is access to the boiler room carefully controlled, no storage in there at all?

What is the standard of the door . its frame and construction? What arrangements are their for early detectionand warning?

As you are aware boiler rooms are generally considered to be high risk and should not open into a single staircase but we are where we are. 

It is permissible to take a "reasonably practicable" stance in your action plan, if other risk factors are favourable the responsible person may be able to justify not upgrading the door.   


 

[A J]

Hi Kurnal,
The block consists of first foor, ground floor and basement level with only the one exit route via the front door.

The boiler is similar to a condensing boiler and is situated in a room the size of a broom cupboard.

The room is free of combustible items and is locked (the warden holds the key) and is included in a wekly check.

The door and frame are of standard construction but with a built in mesh vent. the room also has automatic detection.

The way the building is constructed doesn't help with the boiler room being intergrated and opening out in to the escape route, but you say we are where we are.

[kurnal]

I think in this case the guidance would say the boiler room needs a fire door.

However as the RP I would produce a written risk assessment in the normal way  and if my liklihood / consequence analysis of risk did not give a clear indication one way or the other I would further analyse it by setting out the strengths ( whats good, risk control measures in place and proposed) , weaknesses ( ie variations from the benchmark standards, other weaknesses of the layout, nature or use of the building) , opportunities for improvement (What you could do, how much it would cost and any benefit in terms of the liklihood/ consequence)  and threats ( ie what could go wrong or any consequences or action that may be taken if it did go wrong).

The SWOT analysis may help the RP to make up his mind over the level of risk that he feels is tolerable. We often find that organisations simply cannot afford to make all their premises compliant with the best practice guidance all at once, and advise them, through the assessment and SWOT, in respect of priorities for their limited funds. Sometimes it ends up as a 10 year plan. 

[Clevelandfire 3]

If bulldozers are imminent ie within three months I wouldnt consider the expense of a fire door. Whats the point? If the bileroom is sterile, the boiler has got a GSC and the building has its got an L2 system or above I wouldnt even be worried about it.

[A J]

Hi clevelandfire,

The block will be closing within two months and the tenants are moving out as their new flats become available, therefore by using Kurnal's SWOT analysis and because the risk is being reduced due to the fire alarm system upgrade to L2, would it be deemed appropriate to not replace the door due to the limited timescale or must it be replaced because the room is high risk and it requires it?

[kurnal]

AJ only the Responsible Person can make this decision. The bulldozer in three months is a  very relevan factor - not in terms of the scale of the hazard but in  the  judgement of what is reasonably practicable.

It is right to identfy the hazard, to condider additional risk control measures (Which may include increased inspections and vigilance)  in order to compensate for the lack of a fire door, and for the action plan to reflect the imminent demolition.

The whole point is that if it all goes pear shaped the RP can prove to the Judge that his decision was made on the basis of the level of risk control measures selected  were appropriate taking into account the life of the building rather than just  to save  money.

[A J]

a very valid point kurnal,

thank you for your advice