Compartmentation in shops

[CivvyFSO]

I lead such a department, and I am sure we would be happy to help on a more official basis. To be honest it doesn't even take a fire engineer to disprove this, it is the basics of Building Regulations. They are 'proving' the wrong thing. (Essentially they are proving* suitability under B1, not B3)

* I am using the term in its loosest sense

[zimmy]

Many thanks for all your informed comments, opinions and suggestions. Fishy, consultation with our neighbouring Service has also been initiated, and the opinion received is in line with the above points. I'm now satisfied that the line I was first intending to take has been reinforced by the opinions offered and was concened that I may have been overriding any set precedents, it would appear not.

Thanks again

[kurnal]

Just riding on the back of the original posting, if this property were in London, section 20 of the London Building Act may also apply.

Section 20 is a residual part of the London Building Acts (Amendments) Act 1939 which deals with fire safety in tall or large cube buildings. Although many of the original technical requirements are now included in Part B5 of the Building Regulations there are still some elements that will only apply under Section 20.

It is a matter of fact whether a building comes under Section 20 or not and the criteria is based on size and use alone. Any building in Inner London that is constructed or extended since 1939 will be Section 20 if:

a) it has a height of greater than 30m, or

b) it has a height of greater than 25m and a storey that has a floor area in excess of 930m2, or

c) it is a building of the warehouse class or used for trade or manufacture and has a cubical extent of more than 7,100m3. Where building works controlled under the Building Regulations are carried out to one of these buildings it is likely that they will also need Section 20 consent. Consent can only be given by the local authority, even if the Building Regulations application is being controlled by an Approved Inspector.
I am interested in the implications of this  and how it is applied in relation to shops or as section 20 puts it  "used for trade".
Many of the guides produced by the local authorites simply refer to storage buildings but I was looking at a  modern retail park in East London recently and it was clear that section 20 had been applied to fairly small modern purpose built retail sheds. This was confirmed by the operator of the park.
The one in question had a total footprint of 1500m2 - fine for a single compartment under ADB but as it was over 8 m high fell well over the 7100m cube bringing it into the Section 20 threshold. The building in question had a full height drop down curtain  cutting it in half and furthermore  roof vents with additional provision for make up air at a low level. Probably a mistake by the designers I reckon but it will cost to make an application to change it so my client is likely to leave it as is..

Well thats ok but my thoughts were as a firefighter I would be much happier entering fire in a  shop building with a ceiling height of 8m rather than one of the same size with a 4m high ceiling.

[RonH]

Hi Zimmy, firstly I hope you're still reading...I've been trying to get on through the new anti-spam since you posted.
This thread is a fascinating education in Fire Engineering sources and for that reason alone is a good read, however, there being many ways to skin a cat I have an alternative approach as a suggestion for you:
if you are able to get hold of the procedural guidance document on Building Regulations consultations, it gives very clear guidance on what each party to the consultation process is responsible for.
In the case of a F&RS, this is to comment on apparent compliance with the FSO once the building has been occupied, AND other applicable legislation.
This means that it is not our responsibility to tell the AI how to do his (or her) job, nor to check whether the job is done properly in respect of compliance with the Building Regs.
We should be confining our comments to compliance with the FSO with the exception that we also have a duty to comment under the F&RS Act 2004. Under this Act, a suitable comment in this situation would run along the lines of...'if you build it like this then *** F&RS cannot guarrantee to be able to fight a fire in the premises and may resort to defensive fire fighting techniques. In this case you could expect the building to be a total loss in the event of a fire.'
Once this comment has been made, 1) the F&RS is covered against critisism when the building burns out due to an otherwise small fire, and 2) the occupier will need to disclose this to any prospective insurers and will find premiums to be a tad high. Also, the AI will not be able to hide this piece of information from his client and will look somewhat less professional in any meeting explaining the situation to his client.
The only other exception, for completness is that B5 should be checked thoroughly as there is no second bite of the cherry to put right any deficiencies here. I have found the same approach to be very powerful when trying to persuade AIs to build in adequate FFing facilities as well.

[CivvyFSO]

RonH, welcome to the forum.

The procedural guidance does state that we can offer our observations under Building Regulations. In the perfect world all AI's and BC bodies would do their jobs properly, and all we would be commenting on would be the need to do a fire risk assessment, and act on its findings. In the same perfect world the BC bodies would lead the pre-submission meetings (As stated in the procedural guidance) instead of sitting there sheepishly, scared of losing the submission to any another AI who is willing to accept a load of 'engineered' drivel.

Also, since compartmentation has more in common with B5 requirements, then I believe that we should fight tooth and nail to give our troops the best that Building Regulations is intended to give them. If the firefighting facilities (including compartmentation) within a building are not sufficient to enable our firefighters to enter a building to perform the duties that they are employed to do, then the developer has probably not met the functional requirements of the Building Regulations. If the developers want to build such a building then there is an official route for them to take, and that is via a relaxation. (Which takes the decision away from an AI, and sticks it firmly at the feet of the Local Authority)

[RonH]

RonH, welcome to the forum.

The procedural guidance does state that we can offer our observations under Building Regulations. In the perfect world all AI's and BC bodies would do their jobs properly, and all we would be commenting on would be the need to do a fire risk assessment, and act on its findings. In the same perfect world the BC bodies would lead the pre-submission meetings (As stated in the procedural guidance) instead of sitting there sheepishly, scared of losing the submission to any another AI who is willing to accept a load of 'engineered' drivel.

Also, since compartmentation has more in common with B5 requirements, then I believe that we should fight tooth and nail to give our troops the best that Building Regulations is intended to give them. If the firefighting facilities (including compartmentation) within a building are not sufficient to enable our firefighters to enter a building to perform the duties that they are employed to do, then the developer has probably not met the functional requirements of the Building Regulations. If the developers want to build such a building then there is an official route for them to take, and that is via a relaxation. (Which takes the decision away from an AI, and sticks it firmly at the feet of the Local Authority)

Hi Civvy FSO, thanks for the welocome. I hope your still reading? I'm not too good at this forum lark.. far too long between posts, but here goes:
I agree with everything you have put here, especially with providing Fire fighters with the best possible chances of fighting a fire and surviving. The only issue I would have is that there is no requirement for the BC or AI to pass on our 'observations' to the client. Yes, we are entitled to make observations, but these do not carry any weight. Much more effective is to make a 'comment' under the other legislation heading, usually the Fire and Rescue Services Act. These comments must be passed to the client, who is usually not impressed to hear that the building will not satisfy the F&RS.
I have had some very positive results using this approach, from AIs who seemed determined to cut provisions for fire fighting to the bone and beyond.
By using the AI's tools to do his job for him, we are making him look good. By using our tools to do our job, we show up those who are not doing such a good job themselves.

[Clevelandfire 3]

Late into this I know but out of intrest if something was so obviously wrong can not state that as soon as the building opens the fire authority will take action under the rro to put it right which might end up costing the punter and the a.i. some hard earned wonga?

[RonH]

Late into this I know but out of intrest if something was so obviously wrong can not state that as soon as the building opens the fire authority will take action under the rro to put it right which might end up costing the punter and the a.i. some hard earned wonga?

Hi Cleveland Fire 3,
this is absolutely right, and the whole point (stated 3 times in bold in the 'Building Regulations and Fire Safety Procedural Guidance Document') of the Building Regulations consultation process: to prevent this from happenning.
Failure on the part of either the AI / BC or Fire officer to advise on matters required in addition to Building Regs does not in any way prevent enforcement under the FSO at a later stage, even if this is on day 1 of occupation.
However the problem which started this topic was one where the matter (excess uncompartmented area) was a requirement of the Building Regulations, not the FSO. In this case, the matter could not be made good afterwards using the FSO, as it is not an immediate occupant life safety issue, rather an issue of whether it is physically possible to fight the fire without putting fire fighters in a perilous position.
The base justification for the 2000 sq m limit is: a jet of water will only stay coherent for 25m. Therefore, in a compartment of dimensions greater than 50x50 (2250 sq m) there will be areas where a fire cannot be reached by fire fighters, without entering the compartment, thus putting themselves in immediate danger. Hence compartments over this size need to have other methods of controlling a fire.
if the compartment is built to 3800 sq m without additional compensatory features, then the FRS should inform the AI / BC that they might be unable to fight a fire and would therefore adopt defensive tactics: in effect standing outside roasting sausages on very long sticks! This comment would be made under the Fire and Rescue Services Act, as an advisory comment only. However, as it is not an 'observation' on compliance with the Building Regulations, the AI /BC is required to pass this comment on to the applicant. Observations do not need to travel any further than the AI / BC!