Just to be awkward....
Why do you need a set format to follow? You are there to assess to risks to persons from fire and you have clear requirements as to the information that has to be recorded. You need underpinning knowledge of means of escape, human behaviour, fire behaviour etc, and you should be able to apply that to see where the risks are, what has been done, and what needs doing to protect people.
I am not saying that the various methods are unnecessary because if Mr Todd etc want to teach you how to assess the risks their way, then that is a valid way of assessing risks, but to create a standard 'accepted' way?.. Isn't that just creating another way to get it wrong?
"Yes, you have assessed the risks right but you have gone about it the wrong way, please do it all over again THIS way."
I think that what many people want is essentially an idiots guide to risk assessment, a form that will be asking them the questions which should really be second nature. What you can end up with is too much of a reliance on the template to point you towards the risks, and it becomes a tick-box exercise only.
To me, the risk assessment is predominantly done in your head. Knock it down to the basics: Where can we have a fire, who is at risk from these fires, how do we let people know if there is a fire, what can we do to improve/reduce/remove risks, etc etc etc. From that comes the significant findings, with some proof of process of how/why decisions have been made. Turn that into the prescribed information, and Bob's your Dad's Brother.
Here Here...or is it Hear Hear?....
You can get painting by numbers, you can get pianos with keys that light up when you're meant to play them and you can get a TV screen with the words on when you're singing along at the kara oke bar. But do professional artists and pianists and singers use these when they're plying their trade?
No. They just know what they're doing and they do it.
Don't come back with the argument that builders and car manufacturers and the like do have plans that they have to follow when they ply
their trade. Maybe they do but does the brick layer refer to it before he lays each brick? Does the exhaust fitter in the car factory refer to it before he tightens each screw?
There are levels of complexity that the human brain is capable of that do not require continuous reference to guidance and there are levels of complexity beyond that. A fire risk assessment, like most professional activities, more often than not, falls into the former category.
But you have to know what you're doing. And we all have to learn. So a template can be a useful learning tool. Once you know what you're doing, chuck it away.
".........significant findings of the assessment including the measures that HAVE BEEN........".
This is the gov seeing the situation through those rose tinted glasses again where it's expectation seems to be that every business in the country has abided by the law over the years and already provided the adequate means of escape etc etc. being the fine upstanding law abiding business community it is.
Would a significent finding of "have beens" be that the multi storey premises has been provided with a stairway? 
It is afterall essential for means of escape and would be quite a significent finding of what has been provided.
I'm not convinced that you're looking at this the right way, NT. In answer to your final question, yes, this is a significant finding but, I would judge, one that is so obvious as to forgo the requirement of a mention. What should be mentioned would include the presence of further staircases or a fire detection and warning system or emergency lighting or limited travel distances or fire resistance or management procedures, etc. All positive things. The idea, as I know you know, is that the things already present are complemented by the further things that need to be done so that, on completion, the building is safe. All the fire safety features that are required in the building, whether already present or not are significant findings. And all should be recorded.
If a building has a mezzanine floor, say, where some people work permanently and the public occasionally resort to and it has no protected route off, but it has been judged safe by the fire risk assessor because of certain fire safety provisions (maybe good detection, management and limited distances, for example) then how does an auditor know that it is safe unless the fire risk assessor has recorded the good fire safety features as significant findings. The same is true for simpler situations were buildings have positive features that make them safe such as limited travel distances and alarm systems, etc. All are significant findings. If you don't record them then how can anyone follow your train of thought about overall safety in the building?
Stu
