Offence under the Fire Safety Order.

[kurnal]

Opinions please on the following hypothetical situation.

A warehouse building of 13000 cubic metres capacity on a large open site in  say Surrey (could be anywhere where a local enactment is in place) was subdivided into two sections by a compartment wall to come beneath the 7000 cubic metres threshold under the local enactment.  

Some years later the owner, who is the employer of staff who work there,  knocks down the compartment wall and continues to use the building as a warehouse. Assuming that all other provisions for the fire safety of relevant persons are in place and in good order, do you think the Responsible Person has committed an offence under the RR(FS)O 2005?

The RP is clearly in breach of article 38 but article 32 clearly ties the commission of an offence to the RP having placed relevant persons at risk of death or serious injury. The definition of a relevant person excludes firefighters at an incident.

1- Has an offence been committed?
2- If the Fire Authority discover the wall has been demolished  would they have any powers under the RR(FS)O to enforce its re-instatement or would they have to use the local enactment (Local Authority) to require its reinstatement?

[jokar]

Assuming the sprinklers were there for property protection only, I would guess that as the RR(FS)O is life safety document then no an offence would not have been committed.  If under the local act the sprinklers were provided for property protection and not tied in to any firefighter protection then agian I would assume no.  However, as you are aware Article 38 states that even enactments that have been repealed and revoked have effect if the original intention was for the protection of firefighters.

[kurnal]

Thanks Jokar. Just to be clear in this hypothetical situation and to keep it simple I suggested that the storage building was originally subdivided with a compartment wall so that it fell below the threshold of 7000 cubic metres and therefore fell outside the requirement for sprinklers and ventilation etc. The wall was later removed bringing it into the scope of the local Act.

The local enactments in respect of large storage buildings were intended to make provisions to prevent the outbreak of fire, to prevent the spread of fire from a building, prevent the spread of fire within a building and reduce the danger from fire within a building.

The local enactments, in meeting these objectives, place additional requirements over and above those imposed by the Building Regulations and the Fire Safety Order.

 It is difficult to see how the local enactments can be enforced through the provisions of the Fire Safety Order (articles 38 and 32)  as it would be difficult to argue that relevant persons would be placed in danger in the circumstances I have described. (the building would be compliant in other parts of the country without the wall)

The offences under the local enactment appear only to relate to the enforcement of notices.  No such notice has been served as the RP has not declared the removal of the wall.

So it appears to me that no offence has been committed under the Fire Safety Order  and the only action that can be taken is a notice under the local enactment when the local authority become aware that the wall has been demolished.

If the RP keeps his head down the only offence he may be charged with is an offience under Section 35 of the Building Act?

That is how it seems to me. Article 38 of the RR(FS)O is a paper tiger when it comes to the local enactments?

 

[jokar]

I would agree.  Providing the relevants person have a deatiled evacuation strategy to meet the life safety conditions of the RR(FS)O and are able to evacuate the premises safely in sufficient time without risk to themselves in doing so I would imagine that an FRS would not take any action.  The difficulty comes when and if these conditions can not be met or other fire safety provisions are compromised.

[Tom Sutton]

I don't see how a compartment wall is for the protection of firefighters, a ff staircase, fire lift and rising main but how would a compartment wall protect fire fighters, providing the building conforms to the building regs?

I think the local acts are the paper tiger check out the determination below.

http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/buildingregulations/determinationsandappeals/appealsbysubject/localactsappeals/appeal45431/

[Tom Sutton]

Kurnal have you checked out 4(1)(a) "General Fire Precautions" maybe that is something you could use?

[Mr. P]

AD B, B3 Table 12 says no limit for single storey. But 12a is 7km2 -as you already say. Has owner/occupier considered the wrong guide?
What would the insurer comment?

[kurnal]

Insurer is not interested, though I believe the current ADB for new builds sets a limit of 20,000 square metres which at an average building  height of 10m to eaves gives a volume of 200000 cubic metres. Thats a fairly small warehouse by current standards.  The local enactment takes a view that 7000 cubic metres is a large storage building.

[CivvyFSO]

That is how it seems to me. Article 38 of the RR(FS)O is a paper tiger when it comes to the local enactments?

Not really. Article 38 gives us the power to enforce the reinstatement of such facilities. Should someone then not reinstate the facilities, then we have a clear offence for which we do not need relevant persons to be put at risk.

There could be cases where the removal (or poor maintenance of) facilites could be deemed to put people at risk, but the example you gave would not be one of them.

I do think that the article in the RRFSO is worded incorrectly, it should really relate to 'facilities for firefighters' too, rather than just measures for the protection of firefighters.

[kurnal]

Thanks Civvy that is helpful.

So to summarise, in the hypothetical example I gave, an enforcement notice may be issued under the RR(FS)O to re-instate the compartment wall or install sprinklers/ventilation etc. If the RP failed to comply with the enforcement notice this would be an offence, but as Firefighters engaged on fire fighting duties are excluded  from the definition of relevant persons it would seem that under the RR(FS)O removal of the wall in itself is unlikely to be treated as an offence.

I agree with your point that article 38 of the RR(FS)O may be the best and easiest way of enforcing the local enactment, I wonder if there are any protocols agreed between Local Authorities and Fire and rescue services in this respect?

And whether in those areas where local enactments are in place whether there is - or should be-a proactive inspection and audit by the fire service?

Do you guys have a database of such premises?

Is this taken into account on your audit forms?

[CivvyFSO]

Yes, that is it exactly.

I have not come across any such enactments where I am, so I have no idea how local authorities would deal with them or the arrangments for inspections. I guess someone here will have some in their area though.

There is nothing on the standard audit form specifically regarding local enactments. Article 38 is on there though, and if it is interpreted correctly then any local enactments are clearly something that should be considered at that time.

[wee brian]

We're all assuming that the local Act provisions are for the protection of firefighters - where does it say that?

[kurnal]

It doesn't. Not in so many words. Sometimes the guidance notes produced by Brigades make this point though. I think the assumption is a fair one though? Otherwise similar requirements would be included in the ADB and the CLG guidance if there was a need for life safety and the LPC design guides if it was for property or business protection?

Doesn't the history of the 7000 cubic metres threshold  go back to the Cotton Wharf, Tooley Street London and the death of James Braidwood?

[CivvyFSO]

Compartmentation performs a function of limiting the size of the fire that a FRS may have to deal with aswell as limiting the number of people who could be affected. However, such specific requirements coming from a local act could not always to be said to be necessary and any enforcement action under the RRFSO could possibly be appealed.

However if there is a specific reason for the act, such as there being no fire station in the area, then it could very easily be argued that it is there to assist the fire service. (But we clearly need to know the reasoning)

[Tom Sutton]

Check out page 48 of this months "Fire Risk Management" journal it looks like the fire sections of local acts is for the chop. BRAC has discussed this topic  but I cannot find the relevant documents.