Kitchens- fire resisting seperation or not?Enforceable or not?

[xan]

I was always under the impression that kitchens in general did not require fire seperation under ADB (I know schools do-in the previous edition of ADB and now in BB100.)
However,the suite of CLG guides (e.g.,shops,factories,sleeping) keeps saying 'should' be seperated by F.R. Now , whilst it may be a good idea (for property protection etc) is it really 'enforceable' under the FSO?
Clearly 'should' is not the same as 'must' but some may think they are the same.
Personally I would think it a recommendation,rather than a requirement,but would like to seek other views.

[Phoenix]

This is not to answer your question but to make a point on the use of the word, "should."

When "should" is used it does not mean that it would be nice if you comply but you don't have to.  

It means you must comply OR take some other steps that deal with the issue in some other way to an equivalent standard of safety.

It is up to the responsible person to demonstrate adequately that the required safety level is reached.  If the "should" is complied with then it is taken as read that an adequate safety level has been attained.  If the "should" is not complied with then the responsible person must demonstrate to all parties, particularly the AHJ, that the required level of safety has been reached.

Stu

[xan]

This is not to answer your question but to make a point on the use of the word, "should."

When "should" is used it does not mean that it would be nice if you comply but you don't have to.  

It means you must comply OR take some other steps that deal with the issue in some other way to an equivalent standard of safety.

It is up to the relevant person to demonstrate adequately that the required safety level is reached.  If the "should" is complied with then it is taken as read that an adequate safety level has been attained.  If the "should" is not complied with then the responsible person must demonstrate to all parties, particularly the AHJ, that the required level of safety has been reached.

Stu

In that case,there are a lot of commercial kitchens that will need upgrading.as they have not required to be when they were built,I can see there could be a lot of irate people

[nearlythere]

If there was a requirement for kitchens to be seperated it would turn the world of catering on it's head. Even the humble chip shop with two or three deep fat fryers, usually at the main entrance, would never be the same.
I am at a loss to understand this insistance on seperation when most world class restaurants throughout the country want openess of their kitchens and cooking areas.
I'm afraid that the guidance scribes are adamant that we return to the days when the purpose for enclosing kitchens was to prevent the public from seeing what was happening to their food.
Enforcement? If the public can turn their backs on or pass at distance a cooking area then it's ok by me.
Remember that the only requirement is for an adequate means of escape.

[Phoenix]

Nearlythere has it about spot on there and, indeed, most fire safety officers think along the same lines.  Problem solved.

However, a little caution does have to be exercised in certain circumstances. 

Imagine, for example, a restaurant with an open kitchen and a theatrical chef who delights in extravagant flambeeing (spelling??).  Well, that might be fine, but what if the restaurant has a lowish ceiling, say 2.5m, and it has a largish number of covers, a hundred or two say, and it has exits that, on a busy night, will cause queues before the last person leaves the restaurant 2 and a half minutes after the fire starts (a perfectly acceptable time).  Well, that may or may not be good enough.  In a kitchen there is likely to be the potential for rapid fire development (a frying range going up for example) and with a low ceiling there will be the potential for rapid lateral spread of smoke.  Do you really want two hundred people queueing at exits when the smoke is passing over (and barely above) their heads? 

It's unusual circumstances I've described, but it just illustrates that there are no hard and fast answers and each case must be judged on its own merits.

Stu

 

[xan]

Nearlythere has it about spot on there and, indeed, most fire safety officers think along the same lines.  Problem solved.

However, a little caution does have to be exercised in certain circumstances. 

Imagine, for example, a restaurant with an open kitchen and a theatrical chef who delights in extravagant flambeeing (spelling??).  Well, that might be fine, but what if the restaurant has a lowish ceiling, say 2.5m, and it has a largish number of covers, a hundred or two say, and it has exits that, on a busy night, will cause queues before the last person leaves the restaurant 2 and a half minutes after the fire starts (a perfectly acceptable time).  Well, that may or may not be good enough.  In a kitchen there is likely to be the potential for rapid fire development (a frying range going up for example) and with a low ceiling there will be the potential for rapid lateral spread of smoke.  Do you really want two hundred people queueing at exits when the smoke is passing over (and barely above) their heads? 

It's unusual circumstances I've described, but it just illustrates that there are no hard and fast answers and each case must be judged on its own merits.

Stu

 

Chaps,I am firmly in your camp-I don't think it is reasonable in the majority of circumstances,for exactly the reasons you site.However,it suggests that the CLG 'guides' are poorly worded,but we are being asked to enforce these as a 'benchmark',which I fear many less travelled people (both inspectors and public) would view FR as a 'requirement' rather than a 'desirable',in most cases.Just seeking if others were thinking along the same lines as me

[nearlythere]

Nearlythere has it about spot on there and, indeed, most fire safety officers think along the same lines.  Problem solved.
However, a little caution does have to be exercised in certain circumstances. 
Imagine, for example, a restaurant with an open kitchen and a theatrical chef who delights in extravagant flambeeing (spelling??).  Well, that might be fine, but what if the restaurant has a lowish ceiling, say 2.5m, and it has a largish number of covers, a hundred or two say, and it has exits that, on a busy night, will cause queues before the last person leaves the restaurant 2 and a half minutes after the fire starts (a perfectly acceptable time).  Well, that may or may not be good enough.  In a kitchen there is likely to be the potential for rapid fire development (a frying range going up for example) and with a low ceiling there will be the potential for rapid lateral spread of smoke.  Do you really want two hundred people queueing at exits when the smoke is passing over (and barely above) their heads? 
It's unusual circumstances I've described, but it just illustrates that there are no hard and fast answers and each case must be judged on its own merits.
Stu

All the more reason to leave it to a Fire Risk Assessment.

[jokar]

If the CLG guides are a benchmark standard we may as well give up.  They are poorly worded, poorly written and the wroding changes from guide to guide on the same subject matter and then, what about the horses.  Professional judgement please from all who serve in the FS arena.

[FSO]

These are the same CLG guides that state fire extinguishers are to aid escape too!

[partymarty007]

Not wanting to go off topic regarding 'guides', but remember they are what they are, 'guides' not benchmarks not precsciption but guides to be used with a common sense approach.   However look at what they mean and forget what they are saying, what are they trying to achieve? 

By enclosing/separating a kitchen what purpose has it served?  Property protection probably.  However life safety, doubtful. The kitchen is at most risk when it is occupied by Stu and his flambeaux. When it goes wrong, Stu being alert, familiar and disciplined will raise the alarm, so all can escape.  Where is the need for FR?   

If you are going to say FR the kitchen for when it is unoccupied,when will I know its on fire?  When its huge and broken through the FR. You are just buying time for the fire to develop in a FR box, yes! Oh but marty I will put a detector in for early warning.... What type, DS? no DH?  54 cents before it activates and already a lot of smoke produced.  Rate of rise?  Yes please.  Enclose if you must but be aware of what that achieves, train staff and leave open for early warning is my opinion.

[CivvyFSO]

Can someone clarify where the CLG guides say this? I can only find one reference, that being the following from the Sleeping Accomodation guide;

High-risk areas (e.g. extensive catering facilities such as a hotel kitchen) should be separated from the rest of the premises by 30-minute fire resisting construction.

Which I think is fair enough really.

Don't forget, if we turn up somewhere and 'enforce the guide', it is not because someone hasn't followed the guide, it will be because that person/company hasn't done anything at all. If I turn up to your premises and you have risk assessed your kitchen to be safe with no FR I am unlikely to disagree with you.

[Mushy]

when I was in the fire service and inspecting premises such as offices, shops, factories and hotels under certification and say EPH's under social services or whoever... the kitchens were always FR complete with fire door.
In fact our brigade wouldn't let them put magnets on kitchens because a heat detector wouldn't react fast enough.

We would get new premises built and building control always insisted on the old red line around the kitchen!

[Midland Retty]

As Civvy has already said its all down to risk assessment.

If you have a kitchen situated directly off an escape route then I'd generally expect there to be FR between the kitchen and the adjacent escape route.

In terms of open kitchens within restaurants,  or serveries opening out into dining areas, the size, layout and occupancy of the area, level of AFD etc etc would determine if FR is required,

[xan]

As Civvy has already said its all down to risk assessment.

If you have a kitchen situated directly off an escape route then I'd generally expect there to be FR between the kitchen and the adjacent escape route.
In terms of open kitchens within restaurants,  or serveries opening out into dining areas, the size, layout and occupancy of the area, level of AFD etc etc would determine if FR is required,

and if there wasn't,e.g. in a non sleeping corridoor with two way escape,would you require/enforce?

[CivvyFSO]

Mushy, I do believe that was the way of the good ol' Blue Guide. The first Moreton course I went on was just after the change to the RRO and you could tell which were the 'old boys' on the course because their kitchen was always surrounded by FR. Force of habit I suppose. An enthusiastic Scottish lecturer fellow had exactly the same opinion/explanation as Partymarty on this thread, and his name wasn't too different either....

Xan, it is kinda wimping out on giving an answer... but it is all down to risk assessment again. Besides the risk to people, I personally would be risk assessing the likelihood of the RP managing it effectively. i.e. If I walk into a building as you describe, but where nothing has been done, I would be more likely to enforce FR, whereas I may walk into somewhere similar where it has been risk assessed, with good training in place etc, and be comfortable with it.