Primary Authority to be extended to Fire Safety

[nearlythere]

Isn't it about time we had an initiative like this so that businesses can get a better more consistent service from enforcement authorities. But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

Interesting times ahead I think but it only applies to England & Wales.

"The reform is part of the government’s drive to reduce burdens on business by ensuring that necessary regulations are enforced more efficiently." Is there a contradiction of terms here? ie "reduce burden on business" & "regulations enforced more efficiently". Twill be interesting to see how they join up in practice.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/primary-authority-to-be-extended-to-fire-safety#!

[Mike Buckley]

Lovely idea but it already exists in the FSO where it is called 'Lead Authority'.

I know of two issued that arose, one was a determination by the CLG on Fire Doors where one Fire Authority was taking a hotel to task over its fir doors in spite of the hotel chain having a lead authority agreement with another fire authority approving the situation. Also we had a housing association as a client and we wanted to set up a lead authority agreement as they covered about 5 fire authorities. None of the authorities wanted to do it. although they wouldn't admit it it was just impossible to set up meetings, every time a meeting was arranged the FA cancelled at  short notice.

[Tom Sutton]

Mike I think the lead authority is were two authorities cover the same premise with different legislation, like housing dept and FRS in residential accommodation and they form a protocol who takes the lead.  

I think the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill, set this one up and a business select a primary authority, when their business covers a number of different authorities, like you described in your second paragraph. Up to now it could have been been voluntary, next year the FRS will be forced to join, kicking and screaming I suspect.

http://fire.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2267.0

http://www.bis.gov.uk/brdo/primary-authority

http://fire.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=5514.0

[nearlythere]

"Primary Authority enables businesses to form a statutory partnership with a single local authority, which then provides reliable advice and coordinates inspections and enforcement."

Does this mean that a single PA for Tescos or B&Q or Sainsburys in a authority area with a reputation for being relaxed about fire safety could have responsibility for enforcement for its outlets throughout the UK?

[colin todd]

It means that the FRS who spent 200 man-hours on trying to win a determination and hired an expert witness at a cost of £9,900 (official figures) only to lose will not, in future,  be able to cock a snoot at the client's lead authority partner who told them that the doors were fine without intumsecent strips.  It was said by the FRS that they need have no care for what the LAPS partner thought because LAPS partnerships were not binding and had no legal force.  The facts of this case were referred to BIS during their consultation, with a recommendation in our consultation response that this is easily fixed: make them binding in the form of a PAS.  It is the best thing to happen in fire safety since the introduction of the F P Act.  FRS have shot themselves in the feet so many times that it is a wonder they can walk.

[kurnal]

If I recall the case of the strips was very site specific. Correct me if I am wrong.

LAPS partnerships work very well in the way that type approval works and I see this as its mail role.

Is it in the ratepayers interest for an officer from Brighton to travel to Berwick to construct a site specific case to support a partner?

[colin todd]

All determinations are site specific, as was the LAPS partner's advice that was ignored by an arrogant and ill-informed FRS, who got their come uppance in the determination. Normally, there is no need for any travel Big Al, and if FRS did their job properly there would be no need for any partnership schemes. Alas that is not the world we live in.

[Tom Sutton]

Is it in the ratepayers interest for an officer from Brighton to travel to Berwick to construct a site specific case to support a partner?

I don't think it will work that way IMO all FRA's and audits will be carried as as normal but if there is a disagreements the primary authority will make any determinations not the local FRS, with any communications done electronically.

[kurnal]

I don't see how anyone can present an informed opinion or argument about specific existing premises without seeing the place for themselves.

[Mike Buckley]

 The other issue this could address is the confusion of fire precautions which come about when different legislation and different enforcing authorities are involved. I think particularly of the Environmental Health Officers and their take on the Housing Act amongst others.

I suppose that in theory it could be a great idea to bring it all under one body but given the way the Fire Authorities scrap adding the other bodies will just increase the confusion.

Unless, of course, some bright spark looks at the confusion and infighting and suggests that the overall control should be given to another body which can oversee it all (HSE for example).

[Tom Sutton]

I agree with you Kurnal but I would suggest the local FRS will be doing a physical survey for their audit and any disagreements is likely to be on specific points like “is intumescent strips required on part 8 fire doors.” This could be done on the phone with the primary authority having the last say.

It would be interesting to hear from the FRS’s that conducted the pilot schemes on how did it work?

[Midland Retty]

I don't see how anyone can present an informed opinion or argument about specific existing premises without seeing the place for themselves.

Hmmm ok... What about Building Control Officers / Approved Inspectors or come to mention it anyone who makes decisions off plan then?

[kurnal]

Yes exactly midders I am just trying to pick up the pieces in major building projects in essex, nottingham, birmingham and york where the buildings do not match the approved plans or the workmanship (fire doors, fire stopping and fire alarms) is so dire that clearly nobody has ever looked at it. Problems include compartment walls gone AWOL, protected shafts with plasterboard only on the outside of the studding, jumbo studding fully exposed on the shaft side, fire door frames with 70mm gaps between the frame and the structural opening and fire alarms that dont work despite commissioning certificates or cause and effect written by people who have no inkling of what happens in a fire.

The developer in each case says tough, I have my completion certificate and it has been approved by BCO and fire service on consultation. You then find that the BCO, if he has actually visited site and not done a only desktop plan review (as is often the case especially with AIs) has only carried out a cursory tour.

As far as the Builder is concerned their responsibility under the contract has been completed by the issue of the completion certificate and my observations are dismissed as "purely the opinion of a consultant"  leaving the occupier with a massive can of worms.

[Dinnertime Dave]

I can't see it being a success why? Because most brigades don't want it, it might be a statutory scheme but it doesn't say what service we have to give.

[Midland Retty]

There are already LAPS schemes in the Fire service, some are more keen to do it than others for various reasons. Often resourcing issues have a bearing especially whether brigades have in-house fire engineers etc.