An unusual arrangment

[SeaBass]

I've been asked to RA an unusual arrangement and would appreciate others comments and thoughts.

A twenty two storey block of flats. Single naturally ventilated escape stair. Two Fire fighting lifts. Four dwellings on each level plus roof terrace. Smoke detection installed in lift lobby's, common parts and dwellings. Detectors report back to MFAP in concierge office/reception. All dwellings stay put in the event of a fire. So far so good.

The building owners have turned the first floor into office accommodation, the top floor into clients presentation suites, and have enclosed and furnished the roof terrace to create an observation platform/function suite. These newly created facilities operate under a simultaneous evacuation strategy (the concierge uses an intercom to inform occupants of an alarm condition originating elsewhere in the building)and the roof terrace has been provided with AFD which is on the same alarm zone as  the lift shafts and top floor lift lobby.

Now before you all start jumping up and down and stating the obvious, you need to know that that arrangements have been approved by the building owners own H&S department and the local BCO. I've not been able to ascertain whether  the LF&RS have had any input into this but did note that the existing risk assessment covers the dwellings and common parts and ignores the new areas.

[kurnal]

you need to know that that arrangements have been approved by the building owners own H&S department and the local BCO. I've not been able to ascertain whether  the LF&RS have had any input into this but did note that the existing risk assessment covers the dwellings and common parts and ignores the new areas.

That part is not in the least surprising. But are people living in the flats at an increased risk from fire as a result of the changes? If they are then something needs to be done irrespective of how it was approved and by whom. The basic compartmentation may still be in place and so fire doors or ventilation or water mist may provide some of the answers? There have recently been some fire tests on water mist systems in office scenarios both here and in Germany and there is a draft for development available from the BSI.

We have half a dozen ongoing cases in which approved and completed schemes have very major problems. These are a mix of  big national builders, award winning architects and local authority and approved inspectors. If you look you find problems.
All we can do is bang the drum, try and persuade the owner to either bite the bullet and pay for changes or take the architect and BCO through the civil courts.

[SeaBass]

Thanks kurnal,
With one notable exception the compartmentation appears to be adequate and I don't think that the safety of the residents has been significantly diminished. My main concerns are the mixed use of the building, the conflicting evacuation regimes that are in use, and the apparent complacency of all involved.

I don't suppose you have a spare drum that I can borrow, preferably one that’s considerably larger and louder than mine do you?   

[kurnal]

Tis said that an empty vessel makes the loudest noise so I probably have the advantage over you in that respect  

[Davo]

K

I trust that after your usual pie and chips your vessel is no longer empty


As K says, has the risk increased? I would imagine the biggest headache would be potential occupany of the function/presentation suites


davo

[Phoenix]

One point of note (amongst the others):

From the description you provide it sounds like the staircase is shared by the residential flats and the office accommodation.  This is simply not allowable for a building of this height.  Too late now, I guess, if it's been approved by a building control body.  It would be interesting to know why this situation was approved when it is completely contrary to all guidance.

Stu

[kurnal]

In response to Phoenix one would expect and hope that the developer produced a competent and comprehensive fire strategy proposal demonstrating compliance with the Functional Requirement of the Building Regulations but using an alternative solution to the ADB and BS5588 etc.
Or am I dreaming again?

Assuming I am dreaming where does that leave the fire risk assessor?

I have been in a similar position on a couple of occasions. You spend a lot of time assessing the building, identify the hazards and evaluate the risks. You then struggle to find any practicable risk control measures that reduce the risk to a level you consider tolerable. The building, due to its design, character, nature and layout is simply not suitable for use in the  way it is being used.

You produce your initial findings and suggest the RP goes back to the developer, but he isn't intererested as he has his completion certificate. You go back to the Building Authority who say in their view the Functional requirements were met. You go back to the Fire Authority who agree with your findings and instead of answering difficult questions about their consultations point out that the Statutory Bar no longer exists and the Risk Assessment under the Fire Safety Order must address the shortcomings.

Your client agrees with your interpretation but has no appetite for making a civil claim against the developer or the Building Authority or for implementing your painful recommendations.

Options?

[Phoenix]

Few.

Retire, maybe?

I have refused to handle some cases that have been presented to me because I do not agree with the deviations that have been accepted by the building control body.  But that doesn't help the client or, more importantly, the people who occupy the building blissfully unaware that they are at a heightened risk.

Is it co-incidence that this problem has grown in line with the growth of Approved Inspectors?

Stu

[Steven N]

oh Stu you old cynic

[Tom Sutton]

I have refused to handle some cases that have been presented to me because I do not agree with the deviations that have been accepted by the building control body.  But that doesn't help the client or, more importantly, the people who occupy the building blissfully unaware that they are at a heightened risk.

I accept the safest option is to walk away but could you include in your FRA that the premises do not conform to the building regulations and give the reasons why. Then explain the FRA has been conducted considering the premises as they are existing, assuming that there is a satisfactory solution.

[kurnal]

Thats right Tom, after all it is not our building and our problem so we can recommend solutions though in some cases these are considered not to be practicable.

The jobs you walk away from are those where the RP was just employing you as a back covering exercise. In these cases the RP does not want your report because it incriminates them if they dont do something, they have the attitude that they will find someone else who will say it is ok. And they will. 

Now you cant force someone to accept something they dont want. Especially as they most likely wont pay you for it if you do go to the trouble of producing a report. So in these cases I make sure I just send them a clear letter setting out the problems and keep a copy for my records. My last job of this nature was a large hospital where we parted company without any payment after 3 days work by my team. I would rather sleep at night than have the worry.

[AnthonyB]

It wouldn't be the first time that a client asks for an FRA or some consultancy as despite BCO approval a tenant and/or the fire service have found whatever has been "passed" can't satisfy the Fire Safety Order and are making waves....

Nor would it be the first time that all you can do without compromising yourself is agree with the concerns and tell the client the bad news.

It is on the increase, there are plenty of complaints about BCO's passing short cuts and non compliant installations (without a valid justifying strategy) on the alarm engineers forum as well.

Which is why I hate new builds & major renovations and breath a sigh of relief if one of our other consultants gets one!