Exit routes into adjoining buildings

[AnthonyB]

Lots of properties had issues in the post war period through the latter 20th century with improvements in fire safety legislation (notably OSRP 63 then FPA74) and building standards as existing means of escape was inadequate.

Many buildings had only one internal stair and whilst upgrading it wasn't an issue, the lack of an alternative was where travel distances, height or similar weren't code compliant.

Not all buildings had the space for a new extra external stair on their land and often provision of another internal stair was out of the question.

The result was:
- Roof escape to the next building to use their stair (or over several roofs to an external stair)
- Doorways in party walls at each floor into adjoining buildings
- External exits connected to an adjoining buildings external stair
- External stairs into enclosed yards with final escape via an adjoining building or land.

This is fraught with civil property law issues as unless formal easements are in place informal, owner or time limited agreements, licenses and variations to leases can become redundant and the route of access removed - which in some buildings could make them untenable without unrealistically expensive or even impossible measures.

The question, and the enforcers on this forum are encouraged to give opinions, is:

If building A has to exit through exit B to give a required second direction of escape, but building B lawfully (from a property law point of view) terminates the escape right (no formal agreement, license which has expired, deed of variation has a termination clause which is applied or similar), can the enforcement authorities compel Building B's owner to make some alternative provision or restore the existing provision?

Personally I think they may not be able to from having done some research on the property law side of things (where checking the robustness of exit rights before buying a building is considered essential to avoid having a useless shell of a building) but wondered if anyone thought differently and that the RRO could be usefully applied to resolve this.

[Tom Sutton]

An query I had recently,

A complex problem which has me pulling my hair out! Please excuse the pre-amble but essential.
I bought an ex public county council property it's only land is an enclosed area 10-12ft wide to the side, our access passes down our path and through our heavy gate onto the street.
The other side of this land is the side wall of the Parish Hall, a few years ago they put in a side exit door (solid)without planning permission, opening directly onto our land, they also have a gate at the back of their building that opens onto our land. We have challenged the side door and gate, and in order to defend them and to gain popular approval, they have claimed these doors are fire exits (disabled fire exit in the case of the door).
Neither of them has ever been signed (inside or out) as a fire exit, the door has a lock inside near the top and a chain fastening right at the top, no way of opening it from the outside. The gate is usually bolted and padlocked from their side and the only access to the rear and the gate is through their kitchen. I was very concerned about peoples safety if I blocked either of these doors, or visitors to my property did as they bear no resemblance to a fire exit. Our land is pitch black at night, and has a heavy iron gate halfway along it, and a heavy garden gate to the road. I reported this situation to the County Fire Authority, who said they arranged an inspection. Their inspector passed these exits! and furthermore took assurances from the Parish Hall Official that they guaranteed the doors and access across our land would always be unobstructed. What goes on? Is there something underhand going on here?, now a tame ex fire officer has made a sworn statement that these accesses have been fire exits for over 30 years, yet we have documentary proof the side door did not exist before 2004 and it received a large grant to put it in (but cheap job). I feel that whatever is going on here could seriously put people at risk. Who do we report this situation to?

I see it as a legal problem and nothing in the RR(FS)O to help you.

[Dinnertime Dave]

The question, and the enforcers on this forum are encouraged to give opinions, is:

If building A has to exit through exit B to give a required second direction of escape, but building B lawfully (from a property law point of view) terminates the escape right (no formal agreement, license which has expired, deed of variation has a termination clause which is applied or similar), can the enforcement authorities compel Building B's owner to make some alternative provision or restore the existing provision?

Personally I think they may not be able to from having done some research on the property law side of things (where checking the robustness of exit rights before buying a building is considered essential to avoid having a useless shell of a building) but wondered if anyone thought differently and that the RRO could be usefully applied to resolve this.

I would suggest you are right. If the way leave agreement has been terminated then that is a civil matter between the two parties. However, if the building is now unsafe because of the termination then action could be taken against the RP of the building A.

I used to work in a town where most shops needed these agreements to use the 3rd floor. I have seen one that was used to overcome a travel distance of 25m single direction of travel on the first floor. An agreement was made between the AI, the owner and the F&RS to put in some additional detection in and remove the exit route from the fire strategy.

[Mike Buckley]

I agree that the RRO does not cover this circumstance. I have doing a number of FRAs on a high street travel agent and on a number of occasions I had to advise that a formal agreement should be made with the next door premises to allow and maintain the use of the escape route.

As I see it the RRO places the burden on the Responsible Person to provide adequate Means of Escape for the premises under his control, hence the need for a legal agreement. The only fly in the ointment I can see is the duty to relevant persons which I suppose could be used to prevent someone from blocking such a means of escape but I guess it would have to be established that it was actually a legal MOE. A case for the Courts.

[nearlythere]

An query I had recently,

A complex problem which has me pulling my hair out! Please excuse the pre-amble but essential.
I bought an ex public county council property it's only land is an enclosed area 10-12ft wide to the side, our access passes down our path and through our heavy gate onto the street.
The other side of this land is the side wall of the Parish Hall, a few years ago they put in a side exit door (solid)without planning permission, opening directly onto our land, they also have a gate at the back of their building that opens onto our land. We have challenged the side door and gate, and in order to defend them and to gain popular approval, they have claimed these doors are fire exits (disabled fire exit in the case of the door).
Neither of them has ever been signed (inside or out) as a fire exit, the door has a lock inside near the top and a chain fastening right at the top, no way of opening it from the outside. The gate is usually bolted and padlocked from their side and the only access to the rear and the gate is through their kitchen. I was very concerned about peoples safety if I blocked either of these doors, or visitors to my property did as they bear no resemblance to a fire exit. Our land is pitch black at night, and has a heavy iron gate halfway along it, and a heavy garden gate to the road. I reported this situation to the County Fire Authority, who said they arranged an inspection. Their inspector passed these exits! and furthermore took assurances from the Parish Hall Official that they guaranteed the doors and access across our land would always be unobstructed. What goes on? Is there something underhand going on here?, now a tame ex fire officer has made a sworn statement that these accesses have been fire exits for over 30 years, yet we have documentary proof the side door did not exist before 2004 and it received a large grant to put it in (but cheap job). I feel that whatever is going on here could seriously put people at risk. Who do we report this situation to?

I see it as a legal problem and nothing in the RR(FS)O to help you.

I agree that it is a legal issue with the absence of planning permission the main issue. If planning permission had been applied for then all interested and affected  parties would have been notified and an objection could have been made on the grounds that they have no right to use other property as a right of way. I would also have thought that an acceptance by the inspector would be of no value unless the right of way had been legally tied up.  
What would happen if your client was to build a wall across the door blocking it? As far as he is concerned he can do what he likes in his property especially if an exit door had been provided to discharge into it illegally.

[Phoenix]

If building A has to exit through exit B to give a required second direction of escape, but building B lawfully (from a property law point of view) terminates the escape right (no formal agreement, license which has expired, deed of variation has a termination clause which is applied or similar), can the enforcement authorities compel Building B's owner to make some alternative provision or restore the existing provision?

No.

The people in Building A are not relevant persons for whom the RP of Building B is responsible provided that they are not at risk from a fire in Building B.  This means that we shouldn't have to worry about the potential 'relevant persons' issue.

The requirement for co-ordination and co-operation (Art. 22) is only applicable where two RPs share responsibility for a premises. In this case we have two separate premises.

Article 5(3) applies duties to anyone who has control over the premises and it might be thought that the RP of Building B, by blocking off an exit route, would be exercising some control over Building A but I think not.  The RP for Building B does not actually have control over anything within Building A.

Unless compelled by a formal legal agreement, the RP for Building B has no responsibility for the safety of Building A relevant persons in the case of a fire in Building A.

I would suggest that in both the cases mentioned the people over who's land the neighbours currently assume exit rights are at liberty to block off those exit routes.  However, it could be viewed as unreasonable to do this without warning the neighbours of the forthcoming loss of their exit routes so formal notification is advised.

Think of this, if the RP of Building B did have responsibility for the escape of people from Building A then how far would that responsibility extend?  Would the RP for Building B have to provide emergency lighting or disabled refuges if steps were involved and would they have to provide assistance for disabled people?  Of course not! 

Block the exit routes, but 1) warn the neighbours, and 2) ensure that the people in the neighbouring building are at no risk from a fire in your premises.

Stu

[Indiana]

I think that there would only be a case if the RP of Building B didn't tell Building A of his intentions. Building A would not be aware of the change and, hence, not be able to re assess their risk. But as long as the RP of Building B tells the RP of Building A, which I believe would be a requirement for the RP of building B to do under Article 22, then there is nothing Building A can do about it.

Could you possibly argue that the 2 RP's would be sharing premises in relation to the means of escape as occupiers of Building A may need to escape through Building B? Building B would then be sharing his premises with Building A for escape purposes and the exit door and route would incorporate this.

[Psuedonym]

True event:
Building B was left unoccupied with Exit routes from Building A closed/locked. Once access er.. gained, through an emergency door, no emergency lighting nor mains lighting was available in Building B. (This was within a multi story restaurant scenario with numerous locked signed and lighted Emergency Exits from Building A to B)  
This came about as the main F/A panel could not be found in Building A and rumour had it the main panel was situated in the locked and empty Building B as only a repeater panel was in Building A.
Is this allowed or must access be made available to the F/A panel in Building B from A?

[nearlythere]

True event:
Building B was left unoccupied with Exit routes from Building A closed/locked. Once access er.. gained, through an emergency door, no emergency lighting nor mains lighting was available in Building B. (This was within a multi story restaurant scenario with numerous locked signed and lighted Emergency Exits from Building A to B)  
This came about as the main F/A panel could not be found in Building A and rumour had it the main panel was situated in the locked and empty Building B as only a repeater panel was in Building A.
Is this allowed or must access be made available to the F/A panel in Building B from A?

Would there need to have access to the panel if the system is only required to provide a warning signal? Different if addressable where the fire location has to be identified.

[Dinnertime Dave]

I think that there would only be a case if the RP of Building B didn't tell Building A of his intentions. Building A would not be aware of the change and, hence, not be able to re assess their risk.

Would it not be reasonable to periodically walk the route. I would if I was inspecting.

[Phoenix]

Very reasonable but infrequently carried out (if ever!)

[Indiana]

I agree, totally reasonable. If it was found that the alternative escape route had been taken out of use then the RP of building A would obviously have to address the risk. If something happened inbetween the periodic walk through of routes then the RP of building A would have an argument that he was unaware of the closed route.

[Mike Buckley]

Also the RP of building A could claim due diligence if challenged.

[longjohn]

I agree, totally reasonable. If it was found that the alternative escape route had been taken out of use then the RP of building A would obviously have to address the risk. If something happened inbetween the periodic walk through of routes then the RP of building A would have an argument that he was unaware of the closed route.

How often is 'periodic' isnt there a 'cooperation and coordination' point here?   

[Mike Buckley]

How often is 'periodic' isnt there a 'cooperation and coordination' point here? 

How often is periodic? How long is a piece of string? There is no real answer to this, it must depend on the circumstances and the relationship between the Responsible Persons in each building. For example a two storey shop with a staff room and stock room on the first floor would require a less frequent check than a three storey hotel with sleeping guests. Two RPs who have been in the properties for some time and know each other would require walking less often than if one of the buildings is part of a chain and there are frequent changes of store manager.

In my view cooperation and coordination only comes in when there are a number of RPs within the same building, let us say an old factory which has been divided up into separate industrial units then you have the different employers, the landlord/building manager and maybe the owner of the building all of whom need to work with each other as opposed to two different buildings which share a common wall.