definition of high risk premises

[bevfs]

hi where can one find the legal definition of the term
"high risk premises" with regard to fire safety standards?
thanks

[kurnal]

I dont think you will find a definition, as the legislation is now based on fire risk assessment- ie a determination of the level of fire risk taking into account characteristics of the premises, what it contains, what goes on there, how it is managed and used and by whom.

In the good old days of the fire precautions act the guidance did give some prose descriptions of risk factors- especially the early guidance for factories but it concentrated on structural features.

BS7974 and BS9999 set out the factors contributing to the overall fire risk in premises.

[bevfs]

thanks,im not sure,if anyone knows  if a legal definition has ever been determined in a court

[Phoenix]

Before you can define what 'high risk' is you have to know against which objectives the 'risk' is being assessed. Life safety, stock protection, building protection, business continuity, etc.

Once you're clear on the objectives you can start to think about the level of risk.  But that is not a simple clear cut matter.  

A garage workshop might be considered to be high risk but if it is managed extremely safely by the manager and all staff then it might be considered low risk.  Alternatively, if it is very small and is only occupied by a single person and is some distance form all other buildings then it might be considered low risk no matter how badly it is managed.

In the opposite way, a building that might normally be considered low risk, such as a museum, might be rendered high risk by the habit of one of the employees of cleaning his motorbike engine in the basement.

The general categorisation of premises into high, medium and low risk is simplistic and insufficiently accurate to enable assessors to make a judgement regarding the adequacy of the safety measures installed.  

I recommend you stop looking for a definition and start making your own assessment of risk.

Stu

[bevfs]

Thanks im aware of the process of risk assesment ,the question was wether or not
 a legal  definition of" high risk premises"  had ever been determined or recorded through the courts ,parliment etc

[CWEENG]

I have been asked for this and tried to lay out a definition for :
•   Low Risk
•   Medium Risk
•   High Risk

When the question is asked by a client,
What makes a premises “High Risk” as opposed to Medium or low? (especially when some recommendations you are making cost £) As a professional it would be good to have a definitive answer and not just an opinion based personal understandings.

100 people asked the same question 100 different answers I think!

It is good to be “Black or White” with some things.

[AnthonyB]

This was how it was classified in the days of fire certification:

'Low Risk'

There is hardly any risk to life safety because there are few combustible materials, no highly flammable materials and virtually no sources of heat, which can cause a fire. This includes well maintained workplaces which are traditionally built, e.g. buildings of brick and stone and where:
- Systems are adequate and well maintained; and
- Storage is of combustible materials is controlled and fuel loading is low.

Some small shops and offices of one or two floors may also be of low risk.

'Normal Risk'

Most premises fit this category. They will generally contain quantities of combustible material and sufficient sources of heat to take them out of the low risk category. In such places an outbreak of fire is likely to remain confined or is likely to spread only slowly, allowing people time to escape to a place of safety.


'High Risk'

Where there may be a serious risk to life safety. This includes premises, which have substantial quantities of readily combustible materials or any highly flammable substances and where there may, in consequence, be a greater likelihood of fire occurring and fire, heat or smoke spreading rapidly.

Examples include:

- Areas with work processes involving highly flammable substances (e.g. paint spraying), or naked flame or which produce excessive heat in the presence of combustible materials;Areas involving the storage or use of chemicals which may, in certain circumstances, produce excessive heat, give off flammable gas or vapours, or react with combustible materials;
- Areas with excessive amounts of easily ignitable combustible materials; Buildings or structures incorporating large amounts of exposed untreated timber or lined with combustible boarding;
- Large kitchens using deep fat fryers or other similar equipment, which is poorly maintained; and
- Oil fired boiler rooms without adequate fire protection measures.

In addition, places with complex or restricted means of escape, large proportions of disabled occupants, low staff/customer ratios, isolated groups and high occupancy compared with building size are also considered high risk.

If premises have one particular area of high risk, that categorisation will apply to the whole building unless the
particular area is suitably segregated from the rest of the building.

[kurnal]

Anthony is quite right to quote these from the old FP Act guides.  But doesn't it look dated now, especially because so  few of these risk factors relate to people / management issues. 

They were used in the context of determining risk appropriate travel distances selected from the prescriptive guidance. Sadly I had a hand in ruining more buildings than I care to remember to make them fit the guides.  Thank goodness for risk assessment.

[Phoenix]

Thank you for the voice of reason, kurnal.  Unfortunately, I was there with you 20 years or so ago.

There are no generic definitions of high, medium and low risk that are relevant within the risk assessment framework we have now.  This is because they simply cannot exist.  Note, the word, "generic" here, I'm not denying that specific buildings or areas can be classed as high, medium or low risk but to arrive at those classifications the assessor has to consider a great deal more than the simple (dare I say, simplistic) criteria specified in Anthony's class descriptions. 

Anthony's guidance is great and I am not critical of these pointers one little bit.  They are very useful in helping to develop a feel for what may be at the higher end of the spectrum and what might be at the lower end but the experienced fire risk assessor will see immediately that there are holes in them, great yawning caverns, in fact.  Use these pointers, by all means, but do not categorise premises on the strength of them alone.

stu

[Mike Buckley]

If you want to get more technical look at BS 9999 which gives a more technical version.

Personnally I would go for the old FP Act version as a general guideline but I may move onto the 9999 definitions depending on the site. The useful thing about 9999 is that it takes into consideration sprinker coverage.

[Fishy]

When stating "High risk" or "Low risk" etc my experience is that this is normally being used in a comparative sense, so 'high' risk might be taken to mean any premises that is regarded as being significantly higher than a 'normal' risk. 

The only time that I've found that it's really useful to rank premises like this is when prioritising risk reduction measures, as "High, Medium" or "Low" don't have any direct correlation to legislation.  For example, it's quite conceivable that a "high" risk might be acceptable, in some circumstances - if further risk reduction wasn't reasonably practicable; similarly "low" risks aren't always acceptable (because they might be very easy to reduce further).

Whilst the England & Wales AD-B doesn't define high risk premises, it does define high risk locations within premises (which it terms "Places of special fire hazard").

[Davo]

Not wishing to offend, as a professional the first couple of paras of Phoenix should be your starting point.
I don't think you can assess until these parameters are identified


davo