Hiding behind codes and standards

[SeaBass]

To follow up on the points raised in the Penhallow risk assessor thread re the quoting of code requirements as opposed to the skills of risk assessing. 

I have recently come across two instances were codes have been quoted without consideration of the effects.

The first was a fire risk assessment for a brand new school in which the assessor stated that smoke seals needed to be fitted to all of the doors that opened on to escape routes. I asked him why he had stated this. To which he responded, because BB 100 states that they should be fitted. I asked him what the risk was. To which he answered, without them, the escape routes could become untenable before the occupants have had a chance to escape. Not an unreasonable assessment you might think, until you realise that the school has been provided with an L3 AFD alarm system with visual warning devices and a life safety sprinkler system. I accept that the situation is not code compliant, but does it constitute a significant risk and would you cut up brand new perfectly sound fire doors to fit them?

A few days later I encountered the juxtaposition to the above situation when I reviewed the plans for an infant’s school and noticed that the design did not include exits from the class rooms direct to outside. The fire engineer concerned justified this arrangement by saying that the travel distance within the class rooms was well within code requirements, and that once the occupants of the classrooms were in the access corridor, escape was possible in two directions. 

I pointed out that most access corridors in junior and infant schools are used as break out areas, libraries, display areas and cloak rooms etc. and that the resulting fuel load, coupled with the very young ages of the children, constituted a significant risk, hence the requirement in BB 100 for an exit inside the class room direct to outside. He kindly pointed out that BB100 did not preclude fire engineered solutions that required additional fire safety management by the occupants (although I’m still at a loss as to what his `Fire Engineered Solution’ actually was) and that the corridor should not therefore be used for anything other than access and egress.  When I explained that this was neither practical or feasible, he decided that if it wasn’t a corridor, then it was an access room, and therefore the provision of AFD addressed the issue. Outstanding.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Whilst an alternative is the best option, I am happy with the provision of smoke detection in the corridor to overcome the fire loading. I might question the approach in an inner city high school or in a new build. If you don`t use this approach you would make most schools bankrupt overnight.

 

[tmprojects]

DTD - I thought this is refering to a new build? And he is proposing SD as justification to treat the 'protected corridor' as an Access room to justify the fireloading!  Although i do take your point about imposing unnecessary standards on existing buildings

Ruby - Are the travel distances still ok considering they have been extended by the creation of the 'access room'? And could i ask why has there not been alternative MofE  provided from the class rooms?

Although the F Eng is correct in saying that BB100 does not preclude Fire Engineered solutions. he still has to demonstrate he has acheived the Functional Requirements. This type of proposal is run-of-the-mill in other types of buildings, and i am never too concerned about them. But a School!!! Really!!! That makes me twitchy to say the least.

How many classrooms is the new 'access room' serving? 6? 8? Is it possible you could have 200-300 children relying on that access room as their single direction MofE. Would anyone really be happy to rely on SD as a compensatory feature?

we all know the possiblities of arson in schools. What if a child sets light to a lovely big corrugated cardboard display in the corridor/access room? From the point of detection by the SD, do you think you could get up to 300 kids through the corridor/access room in an orderly fashion, without some kind of panic or resistance from the children (who can see the fire is in the corridor you're wanting them to walk into)? Basically the answer is no. They're not adults (and we all know how irrational they can behave in a fire), it doesn't matter how well you drill them, the minute you say 'were now going to go this way' and they see your leading them into the room of the fire or smoke many will freeze, run or hide.
 
Bearing in mind this school is at the planning stage, would anyone really be ok with single direction into a protected corridor that provides 2 directions, that is the only route out for up to 300 children, being treated as an Access Room (to justify the likelyhood of excessive fire loading in the corridor) because it has SD? thus extending the single direction until you leave the access room/corridor.

I have a feeling some of you may think i am coming across a bit dramatic. Good, I hope i am!!! This, i believe, is a perfect example of when a chip at standards here, and a chip there, and for good measure throw in some poorly judged reliance on management systems, becomes a precurser to a small incident quickly developing into front page news.

I'm going to stick my neck out on this one and say 'never in a million years would i accept this senario' if you can't provide alternative escape from the class rooms then the corridor MUST be protected. I would even go so far as to say that they should consider in their design, and thus restrict, the potential for the corridor to lend its self to secondary use. i.e no unnecessarily wide corridors, alcoves or recesses. The latter, i accept, wouldn't be enforceable. but would be a point i would raise as part of the B regs and FS procedural guidance.

[nearlythere]

Therein lies a bit of a problem when a new build, which presumably has been built in accordance with B Regs and signed off by Building Control, has been assessed as needing additional works. It's not that this is a change of use, where additional measures can be justified, but was designed, built and occupied as a school. If everyone was doing their jobs properly the FRA should only be to identify and record the measures already provided and carry out an assessment of the management of the fire safety.

If the Assessor has identified problems then the building must not have been built to B Regs.
If it was built to B Regs then the Assessor needs to review his competency level.

How many different hymn sheets are out there?

[SamFIRT]

This, i believe, is a perfect example of when a chip at standards here, and a chip there, and for good measure throw in some poorly judged reliance on management systems, becomes a precurser to a small incident quickly developing into front page news

Agreed TM..

 Stand your ground Ruby!    Children (and others) need to be protected from the short sighted short term sycophantic cash savers and incompetent risk assessors.

[Davo]

Nearlythere

When you say 'built to Building Regs' from my long experience this almost never happens

davo

and not just fire safety

[nearlythere]

Nearlythere
When you say 'built to Building Regs' from my long experience this almost never happens
davo
and not just fire safety

I agree but if it was issued with a completion certificate then it safisfied the enforcement authority, whether it complied with B Regs or not. If that was only a few months or years ago or within the period of current guidance then there is a huge problem with the system.
If an assessment flags up a problem then someone or some body has failed somewhere.

[Davo]

nearlythere

I can't argue with the logic, it's just not my experience

davo

[tmprojects]

Nearlythere
When you say 'built to Building Regs' from my long experience this almost never happens
davo
and not just fire safety

I agree but if it was issued with a completion certificate then it safisfied the enforcement authority, whether it complied with B Regs or not. If that was only a few months or years ago or within the period of current guidance then there is a huge problem with the system.
If an assessment flags up a problem then someone or some body has failed somewhere.

The problem usually stems from the lack of following the Building Regs and Fire Safety procedural Guidance. All agencies are guilty of this. Fire Authorities Just say 'Do a FRA' as do Approved Inspectors. But no one seems to look at a consultation from any other angle than the code or standard being applied.

I have on many occassion. writen to say that all though the consultation complies. once occupied it won't. so i recommend you deal with the matter now. usually i get a response saying thanks for your comments but we're not going to do that. cos we don't have to. But don't tell their client.

or they put in some stupid managerial control measure which just won't work. I had one Fire Engineer try and convince me it was ok to use the FF lift as a goods lift because 'It would only be used occasionally for Light stationary'!!! really? why do you need a blo*dy lift then?

[Clevelandfire 3]

yeah thats fair comment tm projects. but to be fair often during consultation the fire service will make comments on a building application and send it back to building control or approved inspector who then simply ignores or disagrees with the comments of the fire service. this puts the fire service in an unwinnable situation cos they may not agree with the new build and must threaten to close it as soon as it opens. if they did allow it to trade and something happened they would be the first or atleast the second to be criticised in the media and the families of people who got hurt or killed for allowing an unsafe building. this is why the statutory bar was lifted from the fire precautions act. its a last resort to prevent silly buildings from being passed. i accept this doesnt help the responsible person though but fire authorities should be bypassing rogue building control or approved inspectors and writing directly to RPS telling them of any potential problems. I know lots of fire services that do this if not to cover themselves but inform the rp.

[kurnal]

this is why the statutory bar was lifted from the fire precautions act. its a last resort to prevent silly buildings from being passed.

 The "Statutory Bar" was purely in respect of fire certification under the Fire Precautions Act. It never applied in respect of the Workplace Fire Regulations and the whole of the The Fire Precautions Act was in any case repealed by the Fire Safety Order 2005.

It was one of the last bastions of prescriptive enforcement and  the old enforcement regime in which the Fire Authority were seen as nasty people making poor owners and occupiers of buildings spend money on fire precautions  that they did not want to spend.

Once the legislation was changed to make the Responsible Person entirely responsible and accountable for their own management of fire safety the statutory bar became irrelevant and unnecessary.

In my opinion the Building Regulations procedural guidance, and the powers under the Fire Safety Order give the Fire and Rescue Service two bites of the cherry and every possible tool that they can possibly need to carry out their enforcement role. 

I agree there is sometimes a problem with Building Inspectors passing work that others think is patently unsatisfactory but provided the fire and rescue services do their job on consultation and audit they cannot be criticised and if the Responsible Person then has an issue with the "rogue building control" thats a matter for them and the  civil courts. Cant see why the Fire and Rescue Service needs to get steamed up about it.

[colin todd]

 

It was one of the last bastions of prescriptive enforcement and  the old enforcement regime in which the Fire Authority were seen as nasty people making poor owners and occupiers of buildings spend money on fire precautions  that they did not want to spend.

That would be as opposed to the new role then, where they are seen as nasty people who believe that a single obstructed fire extinguisher is an offence, so forlornly hoping to make them pay fines that they did want to pay, or making them put fire alarm systems in tower blocks making them pay for something that is stupid and making old wrinklies hobbly down 14 floors to stand in the cold every time there is a false alarm.  The more things move forward, the less they change.

[thebuildinginspector]

its a last resort to prevent silly buildings from being passed. i accept this doesnt help the responsible person though but fire authorities should be bypassing rogue building control or approved inspectors and writing directly to RPS telling them of any potential problems. I know lots of fire services that do this if not to cover themselves but inform the rp.

"I agree but if it was issued with a completion certificate then it safisfied the enforcement authority, whether it complied with B Regs or not. If that was only a few months or years ago or within the period of current guidance then there is a huge problem with the system." Davo

Clevelandfire - I'd agree with what you are saying - in my opinion and I know it's the view my employer, it's both unprofessional and irresponsible to not make the client aware of all of the comments from the Fire Service and we forward your response as a matter of course; even when I might not agree with all of the FA's comments. 

If you have concerns, for AI's contact the Construction Industry Council - our industry regulators and the people who issue their licence or speak to the Building Control Alliance who represent both LABC & AI's.

I'd also remind the BCO that they are (usually) a member of a professional instituion; MBEng, MRICS or MCIOB and they might take a dim view of their nefarious practices.

Ultimately the market will eradciate this practice because I'm sure clients who are bitten by the Fire Authority after recently receiving a Building Regs Final Certificate won't use that Building Control Body again!

[stevew]

The following comments are based upon my personal experiences.

All I can see here is a gaping hole created to varying degrees by all parties.

1. The Architect whose plans have been drawn and submitted to meet the functional requirements of the B Regs.
2. The Building Control who issue a Completion Certificate based upon an audit with the assumption that the building has been constructed in accordance with the plans submitted.
3. The occupier who believes that all is well when he/she receives the Completion Certificate and decides to carry out the fire risk assessment themselves or employ the services of an individual/company who fail to provide the necessaryadvice.
4. The LA Fire Inspector who arrives at the premises forarmed with the understanding that 1,2 and 3 above have
been satisfied.   It is at this point that I get concerned as it is only the Fire Inspector who can retrieve the situation. The  audit MUST identify what others have missed.

Why am I not confident?



       

[AnthonyB]

Because it doesn't work and things slip through the net - came across a high rise office building with a finished floor height of 27m, that had been fully renovated and two floors added in recent years, none of the three stairs were lobbied at any level, no firefighting lift and dubious 'firefighting shaft'. No compensatory measures/engineered solutions.

After several years with a 'tame' FRA carried out now have to let the current management team know the premises fails to meet Technical Standards or the standard guides and that with the current standard of installation all the FD30S doorsets added after refurb need remedial work such that the original rebated doors to the unrefurbed escape stairs offer better protection!

Someone has passed this in the past though, meaning I look the bad guy, but I have to tell it how it is.