single exit premises

[boroboy]

I am currently dealing with a premises which is a Grade II listed small public house (ground floor only).  The plan is to turn it into a wine bar/restaurant.  It has 2 exits both within 45 degrees, travel distance is 14 m max.  One exit is a small inward opening door and the other although almost 1.5m wide has access very, very close to it via a narrow opening close to the door.  The floor areas will permit 150+ persons.  The only risk is a kitchen which is at the back of the premises remote from the exits.  It has an L2 AFD. The licensing authorities have restricted it to 60 persons max.  I have been asked to find a solution to increase the numbers.   The fire authorities has suggested that they are not likley to permit much of an increase.  I've considered all the usual solutions, suppression in the kitchen, increased FR, better management.  I've looked at 9999 and even that really doesn't suggest any possible solution.  Any one got any better ideas?   I could be struggling with this.  I dont really sees sprinklers as an option not least of which is the cost.

[nearlythere]

One exit is a small inward opening door and the other although almost 1.5m wide has access very, very close to it via a narrow opening close to the door. 

Hi Boroboy
Clarify the above quote please?
You say that the LA have restricted the numbers to 60. They are presumably using a CoP or guidance for this. Do you know what guidance?
Your travel distance of 14M would suggest a direct distance of around 9M-10M. What occupancy factor do you base 150 + persons on?

[jokar]

Have alook at BS 5588 part 11 and the small premises guidance.  I am sure it states that you can have 100 persons in a ground floor space.  It is repeated in the 2007 version of ADB but it is more easily read in the BS.  Be quick though the 5588 series goes on 6 April.

[kurnal]

Cant quite picture the layout boroboy. If you would like to email a scribbled sketch I will be happy to take a look.

[CivvyFSO]

The licensing authority cannot put an occupancy on the building apart from very special circumstances regarding public safety, it is a matter for the fire risk assessment.

The 60 is standard for anywhere with a single exit.

The chances are that you are going to need 2 x 1050mm exits, reasonably separated & both outward opening, to satisfy the Fire Authority.

Jokar, 5588 part 11 restricts the occupancy to 30. And as I am sure you are aware it has been replaced by BS9999 officially now.

From BS5588 part 11:

c) The planned seated accommodation or the assessed standing accommodation (see Table 2) for small
premises comprising a bar or restaurant should not exceed 30 persons per storey.

[PhilB]

The licensing authority cannot put an occupancy on the building apart from very special circumstances regarding public safety, it is a matter for the fire risk assessment.

The 60 is standard for anywhere with a single exit.

The chances are that you are going to need 2 x 1050mm exits, reasonably separated & both outward opening, to satisfy the Fire Authority.

Jokar, 5588 part 11 restricts the occupancy to 30. And as I am sure you are aware it has been replaced by BS9999 officially now.

From BS5588 part 11:

c) The planned seated accommodation or the assessed standing accommodation (see Table 2) for small
premises comprising a bar or restaurant should not exceed 30 persons per storey.

Civvy if we are going to code hug and quote sections of guides should we not quote the full paragraph?

"c) The planned seated accommodation or the assessed standing accommodation (see Table 2) for small
premises comprising a bar or restaurant should not exceed 30 persons per storey. This figure may be
increased to 100 persons for the ground storey if that storey has an independent final exit."

Part 11 allowed the number to be increased to 100 for the gound storey in bars and restaurants and the same paragraph is now in ADB 3.33 Note 2.

I do agree that it is not for the licensing authority to set numbers but It worries me when you say that we must meet prescriptive standards to satisfy the fire authority.

If the risk assessment can justify and increase beyond a guide then surely that increase is acceptable. Should other factors such as fire load, ceiling height etc. etc. not also be taken into account?

[CivvyFSO]

Apologies for that, kinda found the part I was looking for then simply stopped reading. 

All those other factors should be taken into account, and like I said (in agreement with your comments really) the occupancy is a matter for the risk assessment. But the chances are that the Fire Authority involved will be looking at the somewhere around the 60 persons mentioned in the CLG guidance or ADB. In hindsight, now I have been corrected, it will clearly be worth mentioning the small premises guidance in any further discussions with them.

[Midland Retty]

I disagree Civvy

60 people is the max allowable on an inward opening door. If it opens outwards you look at the available exit width.

Anyway did I read you correctly is there a pinch point  before you reach that 1500mmm door ?

A 1500 mm door will give you a capacity of approx 300 persons. Also look at floor space ( you wouldnt expect 300 in the restaurant of that size) which has been worked out at 150 people.

The partons are well within permissiable single direction of escape, the floor space and exits widths will take the required capacity, an L2 alarm.

So why on earth has the restaurant been limited to 60 persons?. (unless there is a pinch point which reduces the available width of escape before you hit the final exit door)

[nearlythere]

I disagree Civvy

60 people is the max allowable on an inward opening door. If it opens outwards you look at the available exit width.

Anyway did I read you correctly is there a pinch point  before you reach that 1500mmm door ?

A 1500 mm door will give you a capacity of approx 300 persons. Also look at floor space ( you wouldnt expect 300 in the restaurant of that size) which has been worked out at 150 people.

The partons are well within permissiable single direction of escape, the floor space and exits widths will take the required capacity, an L2 alarm.

So why on earth has the restaurant been limited to 60 persons?. (unless there is a pinch point which reduces the available width of escape before you hit the final exit door)

I think you are going to get told off MR for using "allowable" when using a guide of recommendations, you old code hugger you.
As a matter of interest let me ask you this? If there were two inward opening escape doors of 800mm at either end of a room and each door was within 18M travel distaqnce from any point, would you consider 120 persons an acceptable occupancy figure?

[jokar]

PhilB,

Thanks, you saved me writing more.

[CivvyFSO]

I disagree Civvy

60 people is the max allowable on an inward opening door. If it opens outwards you look at the available exit width.

I disagree with you for once Mr Retty.
ADB also disagrees, check para 3.5 and also table 3
CLG guidance also disagrees, check page 60 of small & medium places of assembly guide.
BS9999 disagrees, see table 11

[kurnal]

As a matter of interest let me ask you this? If there were two inward opening escape doors of 800mm at either end of a room and each door was within 18M travel distaqnce from any point, would you consider 120 persons an acceptable occupancy figure?

Would you NT? I would not. You are suggesting you have the equivalent of two rooms each with a single inward opening exit each with a limit of 60 persons BUT in a fire situation a fire in a single room would not create a threat to more than 60 persons simultaneously. In your example 120 persons would be affected.

On the other hand I did once justify a limit of 200 persons in a public room with a single exit of 1200mm outward opening doors. Special circumstances, ground floor, and the doors were so positioned that there was no concievable event, inside or outside the building that could pose a threat to its availability. Thats why I was interested in seeing a sketch of the layout.

[nearlythere]

As a matter of interest let me ask you this? If there were two inward opening escape doors of 800mm at either end of a room and each door was within 18M travel distaqnce from any point, would you consider 120 persons an acceptable occupancy figure?

Would you NT? I would not. You are suggesting you have the equivalent of two rooms each with a single inward opening exit each with a limit of 60 persons BUT in a fire situation a fire in a single room would not create a threat to more than 60 persons simultaneously. In your example 120 persons would be affected.

On the other hand I did once justify a limit of 200 persons in a public room with a single exit of 1200mm outward opening doors. Special circumstances, ground floor, and the doors were so positioned that there was no concievable event, inside or outside the building that could pose a threat to its availability. Thats why I was interested in seeing a sketch of the layout.

But in a single room situation with 60 persons we are tolerating the level of risk and that the 60 can evacuate quickly through the single exit. If 60 persons used one of the exits and 60 persons used the other, which we are assuming would happen anyway, where is the issue?
If confronted with this suggestion by a client what would be your reason for not accepting it?

[Mr. P]

But in a single room situation with 60 persons we are tolerating the level of risk and that the 60 can evacuate quickly through the single exit. If 60 persons used one of the exits and 60 persons used the other, which we are assuming would happen anyway, where is the issue?
If confronted with this suggestion by a client what would be your reason for not accepting it?
[/quote]

Cuz if 1 exit is restricted by fire you only have the 1 - which could be the inward opening 1 - which then you get limited to 60 pers max...

As K says hard to scope without seeing it, but seems so small that not much could be done to improve, may be 1 new larger exit to replace others (size & UoEW to reflect floor area/numbers of pers), central, easy unrestricted access/egress then could allow max numbers...

[nearlythere]

But in a single room situation with 60 persons we are tolerating the level of risk and that the 60 can evacuate quickly through the single exit. If 60 persons used one of the exits and 60 persons used the other, which we are assuming would happen anyway, where is the issue?
If confronted with this suggestion by a client what would be your reason for not accepting it?

Cuz if 1 exit is restricted by fire you only have the 1 - which could be the inward opening 1 - which then you get limited to 60 pers max...

As K says hard to scope without seeing it, but seems so small that not much could be done to improve, may be 1 new larger exit to replace others (size & UoEW to reflect floor area/numbers of pers), central, easy unrestricted access/egress then could allow max numbers...
[/quote]
But Mr P, we, or they,  are allowing 60 persons to be served by one exit only and as such are making the assumption that that only exit will not be affected by a fire.