Hiding behind codes and standards

[Clevelandfire 3]

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.

Kurnal Im slightly angry and amazed you made that statement considering you were middle management in the fire service. May I say you seem slightly out of touch in this regard. The fire service has the right to cover its backside with titanium 12 inches thick if it needs to and if you dont understand why you really dont understand fire safet enforcement and the legal process.

[kurnal]

Cleveland I only said they dont need to get steamed up about it.  If you and I have a stand off and you are armed with a spud gun and I have a Tazer then I dont need to get angry with you to beat you hands down. Thats what I am saying.

The fire and rescue service hold all the cards in these cases. Yes if the Building Inspector passes something he shouldn't -for whatever reason- the fire and rescue service have all the tools to enforce its correction and the developer can sue the inspector and the architect to recover their losses.  

I am dealing with one shocking and extreme case myself at the moment so I know these things happen. But in my case everybody let the owner of the building down. Nobody noticed that the design did not conform to any recognised standards or that compartment walls and fire stopping clearly shown on the "as Built " plans had never been installed in a building completed five years ago. And I was not the first fire risk assessor to look at it. This was a local authority building control not an approved inspector.

[Phoenix]

The fire and rescue service hold all the cards in these cases. Yes if the Building Inspector passes something he shouldn't -for whatever reason- the fire and rescue service have all the tools to enforce its correction and the developer can sue the inspector and the architect to recover their losses.  

Unfortunately not when it comes to access and facilities for fire fighters, B5.  Under the RR(FS)O the FRS can only enforce the maintenance of what is already provided.  If the building control body has accepted poor provisions for safeguarding firefighters then there is little that can be done under the RR(FS)O.  I come across many buildings where I believe this to be the case, often large sheds or buildings with atria where lip service is given to the provision of smoke control but where the effectiveness of the smoke control is far from proven, quite the opposite in fact.

Stu

[kurnal]

I dont necessarily agree with you in respect of B5 Phoenix.

Local enactments yes I am with you all the way but access and facilities for firefighters as defined in B5 I believe are principally for the protection of relevant persons

That the standards of construction and layout set out in Approved Document B are based on fire service intervention and this requires access and water supplies.

For instance - the design of flats with a stay put policy- the design relies on the attendance of the fire service. In order to attend and put the fire out and review fire spread and the need for any further evacuation such that relevant persons are not put at risk.

[AnthonyB]

I am dealing with one shocking and extreme case myself at the moment so I know these things happen. But in my case everybody let the owner of the building down. Nobody noticed that the design did not conform to any recognised standards or that compartment walls and fire stopping clearly shown on the "as Built " plans had never been installed in a building completed five years ago. And I was not the first fire risk assessor to look at it. This was a local authority building control not an approved inspector.

I'm glad it's not just me that ends up with cases of massive holes in the net!

[Midland Retty]

Unfortunately not when it comes to access and facilities for fire fighters, B5.  Under the RR(FS)O the FRS can only enforce the maintenance of what is already provided.  If the building control body has accepted poor provisions for safeguarding firefighters then there is little that can be done under the RR(FS)O.  I come across many buildings where I believe this to be the case, often large sheds or buildings with atria where lip service is given to the provision of smoke control but where the effectiveness of the smoke control is far from proven, quite the opposite in fact.

I would agree with you Stuart.

A big problem at the moment we are coming across is the lack of protection to mezzanine floors for example.

[Davo]

Prof

Whilst accepting B5 can be stretched in the direction that you cite, not sure the FRS would want to put that into the arena


davo

(unless someone knows different, then do tell....)

[kurnal]

Im  absolutely sure that in Functional Requirement B5 goes far beyond providing for convenient and safe facilities for the benefit of firefiighters.  See Building regulation B5(1).  "The building shall be  designed and constructed so as to provide reasonable facilities to assist firefighters in the protection of life".


PAS79 recommends that a fire risk assessment should consider the entire package of fire safety measures including provision of access and facilities for fire fighters and specifically to determine their contribution to the safety of occupants in case of fire. (14.2).

ADB guidance explains that these access arrangements and facilities are only required in the interests of the health and safety of people in and around the building. The extent to which they are required will depend on the use and size of the building in so far as it affects the health and safety of these people.

I therefore contend that most requirements imposed under B5 are for the benefit of relevant persons and can therefore be enforced by the fire and rescue service under the Fire Safety order.

[Phoenix]

You give a good argument, kurnal, but for me Davo sums up very succinctly some of the existing practicalities.

I used the word safeguard earlier when it should have been assist.  I must have been reading Article 38.

Of course all of B5 is for the safety of people 'in and around the building,' that's what it's all about.  But boundaries and aims become blurred.  And maybe Article 38 doesn't help.  It refers to facilities for use by the fire service but also refers to facilities installed to 'protect' and 'safeguard' fire fighters.  Under what legislation might facilities have been installed to 'protect' fire fighters?  You may argue that unless you protect the fire fighters then how can you protect the people in the building who require fire service assistance (rescue).  But it makes no reference to this, it just says, "in order to safeguard the safety of fire-fighters in the event of a fire..."

I'm not an expert on all the various local acts but secion 20 doesn't appear to give the safeguarding of fire fighters as one of its aims.  I suppose that the functional requirement B5(1), when it mentions the 'protection of life,' means the lives of the relevant persons and the lives of the fire fighters as well.  Why doesn't it say that under 'Performance'?  And under that heading, who are 'people in and around the building' anyway?  Are fire fighters included?  If so, why doesn't it say so?

Some recent examples I've come across where B5 has been poorly thought through at the design and construction phase:

Building of just over 18m in height to top storey - fire fighting shafts provided but no lifts - no justification other than that the height is 'only just' over the limit - should I, under the FRA (RR(FS)O), recommend that fire fighting lifts are installed?

Large single storey storage building where the smoke control provisions (with the stated aim of providing safe and useful access to the interior of the buiding for fire fighters) clearly won't work and the building will obviously smoke log in the event of a significant fire, the size of the building has the consequence that fire fighters have no chance of conducting successful operations of any sort (searching for people or the fire - let alone firefighting) within the smoke logged building - should I recommend the installation of new smoke control facilities (ones that will actually assist fire fighter access)?

New building with extended narrow access roadway (about 25m) and no facilities to turn a fire appliance around - no justification again - should my FRA recommend that a turning circle or hammer head is installed in place of their decorative fountain?

Why should I have to look for justification retrospectively?  It's not always easy.  If I don't...

Under what Articles would these be issues be dealt with, 8 or 9?  Can you foresee a fire service taking enforcement action in all cases like this.  They do in some extreme cases, I know, but where are they meant to draw a line?  If we follow your argument then surely we can only draw a line to separate code compliance with non code compliance.  I can't see that happening.

I'm not having go; far from it, like I said before, your argument is good and, in theory, I support it.  But these are real issues that are difficult to address in a fire risk assessment when they have recently been accepted by the building control body.  I know you have the same problems, you've spoken of them on various occasions.  The examples I gave are just ones of the top of my head - I, and I'm sure many others, have many more examples where the fire risk assessor or enforcing officer is put in an awkward situation because of the standards that have been accepted during the design and build stages of the buidling.  There's Midland Fire's mezzanines.

And it's not just B5 where this problem resides.  So we're back full circle.  Where does the horizon lie?

Stu

[kurnal]

The tragedy at Atherstone illustrates the point very clearly.

I think we have become too polarised in our views since the RRO excluded firefighters from the definition of "Relevant persons". This was done for a reason- I suggest because the RP cannot be held accountable for the safety of firefighters in a building on fire  (section 44-46 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act - re powers of entry and obstruction.)

But when a fire occurs we cannot assume all relevant persons will always be able to walk out of the building by their own efforts unaided. They may be injured or trapped by the initial fire or as the fire develops. Thats where the fire and rescue services, and the provisions of B5 come to the fore. Thats why Fire and Rescue Services should enforce them, and in my view are empowered to do so using the Fore Safety Order.

Back to Atherstone. How many times do I hear Fire Officers say "we will pass those plans on the basis that we will only operate in defensive mode and will not enter - we will spray water in from outside".
Poppycock. If there are persons reported you guys will be in there like a shot to try and help them. So use the powers you have and enforce the provisions in the Building Regulations designed to provide a miminum standard of safety for your operations. It only needs a test case or two, whether its Midland's mezzanines or Phoenix's lift.

Personally theres little I can do as a consultant in these cases. I have refused two jobs this year where the AI was pushing - on behalf of his client!!!!- to water down provisions of firefighting shafts and mezzanine protection. But there are many companies prepared to rubber stamp these proposals and produce a fire strategy purporting to justify them. I always wonder if they truly understand the liability and the consequences of what they are taking on.

Back to Phoenix's examples. There are always borderline cases and just as I dont get worried over a 22m dead end travel distance in an office but my posterior starts twitching somewhere near the 30m mark, I record the variation in my risk assessment but take a judgement was to whether its a trivial,  tolerable  or a more serious risk, I treat provisions under B5 in the same way. Obviously it is not practicable to install F/F shafts where none have been provided so in those cases alternative recommendations have to be made, which may be as weak as contact the local fire service so they may make their appropriate operational plans.  

I do have one RA job in a large storage building where we are currently pushing  for the installation of dry risers retrospectively where these were "overlooked" at the construction stage by both AI and fire service. (storage building floor height 10m 4000sqm) The F/F shafts are  not so easy but we are making some improvements there too.

[SamFIRT]

Poppycock. If there are persons reported you guys will be in there like a shot to try and help them. So use the powers you have and enforce the provisions in the Building Regulations designed to provide a miminum standard of safety for your operations.

Agreed! Here here......

[kurnal]

Its gone very quiet round here.

I hope I have not stifled discussion by my forthright postings. This is an important area - the crux of many problems in the industry at the moment so please ladies and gentlemen please do not hold back - your views and opinions are valued.

[Davo]

Prof

What you say is correct, however I think the FRS are frustrated because they expect the RP to bottle it due to costs, effort involved etc.

Not sure also about the RP not being responsible for the safety of firefighters (sorry the names are still missing when posting).

As RP I have a duty to inform the FRS of any nasty surprises, surely
My competent RA will give me advice on this

davo

[kurnal]

Not sure also about the RP not being responsible for the safety of firefighters (sorry the names are still missing when posting).

As RP I have a duty to inform the FRS of any nasty surprises, surely
davo

Thanks Davo.

Yes the Fire Safety Order in intended to protect "relevant persons" and the definition of relevant persons excludes firefighters engaged in firefighting.  However other articles and duties still apply, eg article 20- duty to provide information to other employers.

[wee brian]

A bit late in the day but - Requiremnt B3 covers fire fighter safety. In some ways it's more explicit than B5.