single exit premises

[kurnal]

Precisely NT. And if the chip frying range was adjacent to that only door we may feel uneasy about 6 persons never mind 60 being in there.

[Mr. P]

Nearlythere, yes of course, but one exit, inwardly opening limits to 60 (or even 30) anywhich way by our good reference books. But if there is a level of AFD, the room is small enough to be easily managed, as K said, early exit would be possible. Most [lot's] accomodations [offices, flats et al] have only one exit from them, at least initially, so there is ALWAYS a Chance that someone could get trapped, but that's the whole perculation of RA for you (us I mean, not U personally NT).

[nearlythere]

Precisely NT. And if the chip frying range was adjacent to that only door we may feel uneasy about 6 persons never mind 60 being in there.

So if the 1/2hrfr enclosed kitchen was at the opposite end from the inward opening 800mm exit door and there were no significent fire hazards in the public area then maybe 100 persons using a 800mm inward opening door could be assessed as an acceptable means of escape.
From the point of view of a risk assessment what could go wrong?

[CivvyFSO]

In a premises as small as described there probably will be very little benefit in AFD. Having the only real risk enclosed in FR with a HD in place would be a clear benefit though.

Regarding the placement of the risk relative to the door in question, the fire doesn't have to be by the exit to cause a problem. The station nightclub fire is an example of what can happen when too many people want to use the same exit, (granted, there were other big issues with the place regarding using pyrotechnics inside, surface coverings etc) and it could easily have been of such a layout regarding fire loading etc that there was no chance of losing the main door whatsoever. The main entrance/exit wasn't taken out by fire, it was taken out by the number of people trying to use it and the urgency that will have been evident.

It is an extreme example I know, but it shows why there needs to be a good thought process behind any decisions that are made. You need to be able to qualify that people will remain calm, and won't be threatened by fire at all. The reason for the door widths and the theoretical 2.5 minutes is not just related to the time it takes the national anthem, it is to keep a reasonable flow rate through the door that people are happy to move at without feeling like they are being put at risk. (i.e. If you are trying to escape, and you join a queue that doesn't seem to be moving, that is when the pushing and shoving starts)

Forgive me for giving an extreme example. I am not saying that we should stick rigidly to the 60, but things are sometimes not quite as simple as they seem, but a good risk assessor could account for these details, as seems to be happening here.

[nearlythere]

Good points Civvy but as you acknowledge to compare a small restaurant with the Station Fire would be extreme for many reasons some you have pointed out.
If there were two exits in this small restaurant and one was not available for some reason you would still have 100 persons queuing up to use the other to get out in 2.5 minutes. Would it take that long to evacuate such a small room?Would 3 or 4 minutes be enough time?
Again what would go wrong in this small restaurant with the kitchen enclosed to 1/2hr and no significent fire risks in public area.
Is this not what Risk Assessing is about?

[CivvyFSO]

It is indeed.

I think 4 minutes will seem like a long time to anybody stood waiting in a queue to leave a building with a fire in it, which is where we come to the flow rate through the exit, and the psychological effect that waiting in that queue will have on people. If you can ensure that they are not threatened by fire, even psychologically, then you have a good case,

[Midland Retty]

Civvy to firstly answer your response.

Page 60 of the CLG guide is referring to the fact that a room without its own means of escape directly to fresh air which is expected to hold 60 people should have two doors leading from it onto an escape route.

NT to answer your question you cant have a restaurant with two inward opening doors holding 120 people because you can't expect 60 folks to use one door and the other 60 to use the other. What if a fire takes out one exit? you'd be left with just one inward opening door.

Back to the scenario given by the original poster... we have one outward opening 1500mm final exit door directly from the public (licensed) area. I still  can not see why, when the kitchen is remote from the means of escape, the licensing authority have limited it to 60 people. Would need to see a plan, but based on the info given Im confuddled !

[CivvyFSO]

Page 60 of the CLG guide is referring to the fact that a room without its own means of escape directly to fresh air which is expected to hold 60 people should have two doors leading from it onto an escape route.

It says "At least two exits should be provided if a room/area is to be occupied by more than 60
persons. This number of 60 can be varied in proportion to the risk" which I think is quite clear in it's meaning. We are talking about a room/area that is wanted to be occupied by more than 60 persons.

What if a fire takes out one exit? you'd be left with just one inward opening door.......

......we have one outward opening 1500mm final exit door directly from the public (licensed) area. I still  can not see why, when the kitchen is remote from the means of escape, the licensing authority have limited it to 60 people.

Can you see the contradiction here? In NT's theoretical example in the same building you discounted an exit due to fire, yet with the single exit you don't. If you are going to say that a fire is capable of taking out one exit, then the very same premises with only one exit to start with is not very safe at all.

[Midland Retty]

Hi Civvy

Whoops! I didn't read Nearlythere scenario properly. He only mentions one door rather than two. But even still regardless of it's width it is inward opening so automatically limits the occupancy to 60 persons anyway (crush factors).

It is totally different to the original poster's scenario where there is a 1500mm outward opening door leading directly to fresh air from the licensed area. All punters can hit that exit within single direction travel distance. Why would we require two exits? And unless there is a pinch point somewhere before you hit that final exit door then I'm not sure why the licensing authorities have limited it to 60.

The paragraph given on page 60 of the CLG guide is carried over (if memory serves me right) from the FPA / Workplace regs whereby you could have a large function room off a corridor say which holds 60 or more people. Generally most doors will open inward into the room (otherwise you would clout someone in the corridor with the door if it opened outwards). Therefore you have two doors accessing the room.

[CivvyFSO]

FPA you say?... From the blue guide...

More than one exit will be required in the following situations:-
(a) if a room is to be occupied by more than 60 persons

[Midland Retty]

Yes indeed Civvy 

Talk about a dog with a bone 

Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on this one chummy! 

[CivvyFSO]

 

[Midland Retty]

 

[nearlythere]

It is totally different to the original poster's scenario where there is a 1500mm outward opening door leading directly to fresh air from the licensed area.

MR. Can't see where the original poster said that the 1500 door was outward opening. Anyway, the issue I was trying to get draw debate on was in relation to 60+ persons and a single exit, even inward opening.
Would the panel agree that in this situation the occupancy could be increased to 100 based on a FRA rather than generic guidance? Obviously the EA has found it difficult to tear itself away from the "no more than 60 in a single exit situation, regardless of anything approach".

[Midland Retty]

As i said above based on no other information being available if we have a 1.5 metre outward opening door then I would not be concerned. I do not, on a risk assessment basis, see the need to provide two exits.

If the door is inward opening then it should be limited to 60 IMHO