Author Topic: Disabled evacuation - lifts as a minimum requirement  (Read 24385 times)

Offline tmprojects

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
Disabled evacuation - lifts as a minimum requirement
« on: March 19, 2011, 02:11:47 AM »
I have started this new thread to extend on Northern Uproar's thread, but didn't want to hijack his.

My question is this.  As far as i can see there is no criteria within any standard that would require evacuation lifts to be installed. all seem to merely quote them as a 'management option'. But in my opinion, within the scope of the FSO, i would say there are occasions were it should be required.

For example: Public building over 'x' floors, with a high volume of public, with an unknown quantity of disabled, old and low mobility persons. do you think refuse points with evac chairs and a few unwilling staff members is sufficient? do you think joe public would even understand, be aware of or willing to participate in this system? If they already have the lifts wouldn't an upgrade to an evac lift be the sensible approach?

So, i believe it could be possible to have a premises that complies with B.regs but is considered not to comply with the FSO. In fact i would even go so far as to suggest that you could meet the design criteria within AD(B) and still fail to acheive compliance with the functional requirement.

B1 The building shall be designed and constructed so that there are appropriate provisions for the early warning of fire, and appropriate means of escape in case of fire from the building to a place of safety outside the building capable of being safely and effectively used at all material times.



Offline kurnal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6489
    • http://www.peakland-fire-safety.co.uk
Re: Disabled evacuation - lifts as a minimum requirement
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2011, 09:03:10 AM »
IBut in my opinion, within the scope of the FSO, i would say there are occasions were it should be required.

For example: Public building over 'x' floors, with a high volume of public, with an unknown quantity of disabled, old and low mobility persons. do you think refuse points with evac chairs and a few unwilling staff members is sufficient? do you think joe public would even understand, be aware of or willing to participate in this system? If they already have the lifts wouldn't an upgrade to an evac lift be the sensible approach?


It comes down to an argument in respect of what is reasonably practicable. If the lift shafts already exist in a suitable location with appropriate fire protection it may be reasonably practicable to upgrade them.

If on the other hand they for example are sited to serve shoppers giving access directly to the shop floor and remote from a final exit it may not even be practicable to upgrade them. In such a case the RP would have to put robust other measures in place and find a way of transforming the unwilling and few staff into an effective and enthusiastic team.

Offline Phoenix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Get a bicycle. You will not live to regret it
    • MetaSolutions (Fire Safety Engineering) Ltd.
Re: Disabled evacuation - lifts as a minimum requirement
« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2011, 05:15:09 PM »

So, i believe it could be possible to have a premises that complies with B.regs but is considered not to comply with the FSO.


Nothing new there.



In fact i would even go so far as to suggest that you could meet the design criteria within AD(B) and still fail to acheive compliance with the functional requirement.


ADB gives only guidance.  It states, itself, that it is only appropriate for less complex buildings and it points to alternative sources of guidance.  It does state clearly what the functional requirements are and, before it goes into specific recommendations, it supports the functional requirements with broader general comments about how they might be met.

Often fire engineers will view ADB recommendations as too onerous and will try to chip away at these but sometimes it is the other way round, as you are referring to, where ADB falls short of providing suitably complex recommendations for a given building.  ADB is far from being the be-all-and-end-all.

Regarding the conversion of lifts to evacuation lifts, this is not a simple matter, as kurnal has already pointed out.  There are requirements for access and egress routes, including suitable lobbies, that might be difficult to achieve.

I have seen situations where people think that if they put an evacuation lift in they can fill the building with people in wheelchairs - when, in fact, little would have been more dangerous.

Stu


Offline tmprojects

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
Re: Disabled evacuation - lifts as a minimum requirement
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2011, 07:10:24 PM »


Often fire engineers will view ADB recommendations as too onerous and will try to chip away at these but sometimes it is the other way round, as you are referring to, where ADB falls short of providing suitably complex recommendations for a given building.  ADB is far from being the be-all-and-end-all.


True.. True.. And i agree with all thats been said. Its all about proportionallity and what is reasonable.

But if at the design stage of a building project i don't think its unreasonable to expect them to of at least considered it. the problem is that if you were to object to the reliance on refuges and coms and said that Evac lifts would be required. you can bet your bottom dollar they would wave AD(B) or BS9999 at you saying tell me in here were it says i should have them. at which point i wave the FSO back at them saying go and do a FRA.

Thats my question in essence. why isn't there a para. that sets out criteria where it is recommended unless it can be demonstrated otherwise?  for example; building over X meters, Public Buildings.

Offline AnthonyB

  • Firenet Extinguisher Expert
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2490
    • http://www.firewizard.co.uk
Re: Disabled evacuation - lifts as a minimum requirement
« Reply #4 on: March 19, 2011, 09:48:07 PM »
There is less excuse with new builds - they put in refuges, comms systems and fire-fighting lifts and shafts, but always seem to shy off the full spec evac lift meaning it's back to refuges and chairs (although a fire-fighting lift can be used in certain circumstances).

They are very rare to find!
Anthony Buck
Owner & Fire Safety Consultant at Fire Wizard


Extinguisher/Fire History Enthusiast

Fire Extinguisher Facebook Group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=65...415&ref=ts
http://www.youtube.com/user/contactacb
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/anthony-buck-36

Offline Phoenix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 677
  • Get a bicycle. You will not live to regret it
    • MetaSolutions (Fire Safety Engineering) Ltd.
Re: Disabled evacuation - lifts as a minimum requirement
« Reply #5 on: March 19, 2011, 10:40:25 PM »
Remember that the the compilers of the various guidance documents have a responsibility not to impose too high a burden on the construction industry.  Each iteration of each document is the product of a balancing act governed by pressures from not only enforcing authorities but also from representative construction bodies.  That's life.

Stu


Offline tmprojects

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
Re: Disabled evacuation - lifts as a minimum requirement
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2011, 11:10:47 PM »
Remember that the the compilers of the various guidance documents have a responsibility not to impose too high a burden on the construction industry.  Each iteration of each document is the product of a balancing act governed by pressures from not only enforcing authorities but also from representative construction bodies.  That's life.

Stu



Ok! but what about too high a burden on the occupier?

I think we all accept, without question, that the evacuation of disabled and less mobile persons is as important as any other relevant person.

If so, and we believe that adequate provisions should be put in place. what is more reasonable?

1. upgrading a lift (that is to be installed/upgraded as part of the project) to an evac lift. at a one off fixed price.

2. evac chairs with its continuous management and training.

surely the first option is a smaller burden on industry as a whole.

And not-with-standing the money issue. ask any Disabled person what there preference is. evac chair or lift.

« Last Edit: March 23, 2011, 01:54:38 PM by tmprojects »

Offline jimbosdad

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: Disabled evacuation - lifts as a minimum requirement
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2011, 09:18:44 AM »
Quote
do you think refuse points with evac

I'm sure many of you spotted this and that it is a complete accident, but it would be remiss of me not to point it out and implore you to be more mindful...

Offline tmprojects

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
Re: Disabled evacuation - lifts as a minimum requirement
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2011, 09:49:22 PM »
Quote
do you think refuse points with evac

I'm sure many of you spotted this and that it is a complete accident, but it would be remiss of me not to point it out and implore you to be more mindful...

I'm sorry ubt i refuge to be more mindfull.


Offline thebuildinginspector

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: Disabled evacuation - lifts as a minimum requirement
« Reply #9 on: March 28, 2011, 01:38:32 PM »
Really interesting reading through your posts as a Building Control Surveyor.

To offer a complete service and to provide consistent  professional advice, I think it'd be remiss of any Building Control body not to advise that the provision of the refuge might not be suitable to ensure compliance with the RRO. I'm afraid this is an issue with training and competence and BCO's not having a holistic view of fire safety - an industry wide issue, true of both Local Authorities and Approved Inspectors.

We regularly see clients wanting the regulatory minimum and not giving any consideration to the future operation of the building, particularly when it comes to shell and core projects; their brief is to acheive compliance and the aren't too bothered what happens when the tenant comes along! 

On larger projects with firefighting shafts, I can't understand why clients can't put an extension to the alternative power supply they are providing for the firefighting lift and put in an evac lift.....

I hope this is an area of the Regs that will change in the future, I think it's pretty terrible in 2011 to expect a disabled persons to wait in a protected enclosure for assistance while the fire rages away on the other side of the 100mm  (or less) wall!







It goes without saying that all spurious judgements & fatuous opinons on here are my own and don't represent anyone else. No one would want them anyway.

Offline tmprojects

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
Re: Disabled evacuation - lifts as a minimum requirement
« Reply #10 on: March 30, 2011, 08:14:20 PM »


I hope this is an area of the Regs that will change in the future, I think it's pretty terrible in 2011 to expect a disabled persons to wait in a protected enclosure for assistance while the fire rages away on the other side of the 100mm (or less) wall!


Absolutely.