Fire risk assessment/fire strategy report

[mevans421]

I wanted to elaborate on a recent experience to see what the comments of the forum was.  (Forgive me, I did post a similar theme on my original post in the fire safety section started 2nd September 2010, however, thought the 'New' topic logo in the FRA section would catch your attention better!)

I was requested to undertake an FRA of a new, small, single stairway (no lobbies) (AOV fitted) block of flats prior to first occupation for a social housing provider.  I noted, inter-alia (I love using that phrase ever since I read it in Toddy's report for Rose Park) that three flats opened directly onto the stair on the ground and 1st floor whilst 2 opened directly onto the 2nd floor.  Dutifully I reported back to my client that the block did not comply with prescriptive Building Regulation guidance (paradox intended) found in ADB, Volume 2, Diagram 9b and therefore an inquiry should be made with the developer/regulator for its justification.  I went onto say that any justification by either aforementioned party should have been considered upon receipt of a fire strategy report so that they could fully appreciate the weight/circumstances/consequences of their decision.

A request was sent to the developer who didn't know what a fire strategy report was!! (no surprise there) and eventually an email was sent by the regulator (LABC) who responded as follows, and I quote:

""In respect of item 3 below, regarding apartment building A at (name removed for confidentiallity), I would respond as follows:The plans were considered to conform with paragraph 2.21 and diagram 9b in Approved Document B with the exception that there are 3 flats to the ground and first floors rather than the suggested maximum of 2 where a lobby is omitted between the stair and dwelling entrance.  It was considered, for the layout provided, that 3 flats per storey did not present a significantly higher risk to occupants than 2 flats per storey and the design was approved.  Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service was also consulted on the proposals and did not raise this as an issue.   The provision of the AOV was not a compensatory feature as this would normally be expected to conform to diagram 9 note 3."

My questions to the forum are set out below:

1. Can a regulator and/or fire service make a decision that a non ADB compliant layout does not represent a significantly higher risk without having received a documented fire strategy report which would consider, inter-alia (love that phrase) the history of  why only two flats per storey are permitted and then provide argument for why (if appropriate) by having more than 2 per floor in this case doesn't matter?

2. In consideration that the fire service did not raise the matter as an issue could mean one or more of several things; e.g. They didn't pick up the plans, they didn't know what they were doing, they were talking about their pensions, they were on strike or something else!  Nonetheless, by not making any comment I suggest it would be for the regulator to raise their attention to it so at least they note the variation?

3. Now that the block has been handed over and has passed from BC regulation to FSO would it not be appropriate for the fire risk assessor to request a fire strategy report from the developer as part of his Building Regulation 38 burden so that the risk assessor can ensure that any compensatory measures (physical and/or managerial) adopted for the variation are appropriately managed, tested, maintained for compliance with the FSO for the life of the building?  Without any such justification surely the risk assessor could only advise remedial works required commensurate with diagram 9b requirements.  (Now its the clients problem and cost to put something right that without justification should have been done by the developer/regulator.)

(In the meantime, the client is now thinking that they  should of used a fire risk assessor that doesn't know his arse from his elbow so that no such awkward issues are ever raised again!!  Ho Hum!)

[kurnal]

You are certainly correct to identify the discrepancy in a new build and this should have been justified in the design fire strategy to support the building regs application. But you are where you are and at this stage all you can do is identify the issue and make a judgement as to whether any additional risk control measures are necessary to ensure that relevant persons are not at risk. I think if I were in your shoes I would consider the risk to be tolerable. There still will only ever be a single fire in any one flat at any one time and the conditions in the communal areas outside the flat of origin will be the same whether there are two or three flats at ground floor level. Personally I do not see a problem with this.

By golly I could take you to some far hairier new builds but don't get me started on the dire state of the construction industry and the approved inspectors in the pockets of the builders. Disasters waiting to happen.

[Dinnertime Dave]

I agree with kurnal when he says there are some hairier examples out there. I assume these are general needs flats, try looking at sheltered/extra care housing - now that is a nightmare and a minefield of definitions.

Some brigades have stopped making comments at BR stage D&S might be one of these brigades. Fortunately my brigade does,  but when I do I am met with the standard it meets the functional requirements statement. The truth is the fire service don't enforce building regulations, they pick up the pieces later. Obviously when we aren't discussing our pensions or on strike.

From a personal point of view it is easier to pick those pieces up later if you have made sensible and relevant comments at BR stage.

[mevans421]

Kurnal/DD

I have seen 1000's of flats during my assessments with all sorts of horrors I just wanted to comment on this one because it was a new build and IMO it represented the common blas? approach adopted of many BCO's with regard to their acceptance of variations from ADB and their disregard for the developers burden to provide sufficient information under Regulation 38.

In consideration of your answer Kurnal I understand that there will only ever be a single fire in any one flat at any one time and the conditions of the communal areas outside the flat of origin will be the same whether there are two or three flats at ground floor level, but when you say you don't see a problem with this I consider you have used the same un-qualitative judgement as the BCO.  Let me explain:

The BCO and you have said in essence that by having more than two flats without lobbied separation presents 'no higher risk' but lets put that into context.  ADB permits 2 flats per floor,  however, (without consideration for the history/purpose of the ADB restriction) the BCO has said 3 flats is ok.  That is an increase of 50%!!  Now if DD was to get a rise of 50% of his pension I am sure the FBU would consider that as a 'significantly higher' offer and dutifully bite the hand off the public purse that has to provide it. 

Furthermore, for the purpose of argument if you are accepting of a 50% increase by the addition of 1 flat per floor, then by adding another flat only increases the risk by 25% (3 + 1 = 25% increase).  This can now be argued to be a significantly lesser increase than that previously authorised and therefore must be acceptable?  Just to continue that train of thought, lets say that I now want to add another flat, (4 + 1) then only an increase of 20% has occurred.  Wow, if I carry on I could get the London Shard to comply! and maybe that is how the Approved Inspectors have applied their logic over time so that we see on a regular basis the hairier new builds you have talked about.

I continue to suggest that for the regulator to carry out his responsibilities appropriately, they must receive any variations from ADB in the form of a fire strategy report no matter how simple that report is.  Without it anything goes.

A recent example I submitted to an A.I. who requested sprinklers for a building that did not have a turning circle large enough for a fire appliance went something like this:

The fire service now invest considerable amounts of money into the training of their drivers so that they can reverse more than 20m at anyone time.  The appliances that they drive are fitted with rear view mirrors and by deploying banksman they have a reasonable chance of negotiating the required reversing distance of 30m within an acceptable time so as not to delay their next cup of tea.

Furthermore, can the regulator please advise how sprinklers will help my driver reverse any quicker/safer!!

The argument (fully documented and reasoned) was accepted and was made available by the developer to the building owner prior to first occupation under his obligations of Regulation 38 so that the forthcoming fire risk assessor didn't have to ponder over the variation.  Simples!

[mevans421]

Sorry, my comment about sprinklers above was in relation to the regulators request for sprinklers as a compensation for the extra 10m reversing distance.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Sorry, my comment about sprinklers above was in relation to the regulators request for sprinklers as a compensation for the extra 10m reversing distance.

The AI is wide of the mark anyway without considering your argument about competency of drivers. The issue you describe isn't about the ability to firefight. If you can get to within 45m of the entire footprint then that element is satisfied, not being able turn around afterwards is another problem.

Whilst I agree with you in principle about hammerheads and turning circles, I recently carried out a site visit where is problem was discussed, reversing distance of around 35m, not a problem in principle. However, add to this that cars were parked haphazardly and no street lighting in a narrow road then there is a problem.

Another example in some of our areas is the potential for an ambush, small fire in a bin, appliance draws up facing into the cul de sac, then the stones and bricks start. In these circumstances the ability to turnaround quickly is a good idea.

[kurnal]

 I agree there is a problem within the costruction industry with regard to compliance with regulation 38 and that bcos and  AIs alike are not doing enough to enforce this. And that ADB is prescriptive in nature and represents one design solution, developers are free to use alternative approaches but this should then be justified by the provision of a design fire strategy document that should be considered by the authorities having control.

But we come back to the role of the fire risk assessor, Does an extra flat increase the level of risk to the extent that additional risk control measures are necessary? If so what would be a reasonably practicable solution? In the example given clearly the extra flat does represent some increased risk compared to the ADB benchmark but it clearly does not increase the risk to life in case of fire by 50%.

ADB is an outstandingly well written document but it's brevity means that it sometimes lacks explanation for its recommendations. There are many mis perceptions, I came across one design recently in which the designer was adamant that in a 3storey block he was "entitled" to have two flats at each level without lobbies opening directly off the staircase with 4 more at each level opening iff a lobby.

[Mike Buckley]

I agree with kurnal, the question has to be what is the role of the fire risk assessor.

In my view the role is to assess the risk not to determine whether the building conforms strictly to ADB. I have had arguments with developers who state 'the building conforms with ADB, therefore what are you worried about', in a similar line I have come across buildings which do not strictly conform to ADB but at the same time have a low risk.

ADB and BS9999 et al set out the guidelines for best practice and both documents acknowledge that there may be other solutions to the issues that are satisfactory but do not strictly meet the guidelines. But I agree that in those cases the decisions and the reasoning behind them do need to be recorded.

With reference to the part of the fire brigade in the planning process my experience is that all too often it is restricted to a quick look at the plans and then a letter along the lines that it looks ok subject to a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment. This has the catch that if any goes wrong it is obvious that the FRA was not suitable and sufficient. I am not saying it is right but that is what seems to be happening as part of the drive to save money and the operational needs will always take precedence particularity in manpower.

[kurnal]

Following on from Mikes point, one thing that makes me really did my heels in these cases is when the fire strategy document that supports the Building Regulations approval states " the design is not compliant in respect of ......... and this factor will have to be addressed in the subsequent fire risk assessment to be carried out under the Fire Safety Order".  

An all too common event,  usually used to cover up a bag of shi*e when  BCOs and AIs have sloped shoulders and not done their job. And the end user of the building is left with a legacy of problems. Have several of these ongoing, seems particularly prevalent in the student accommodation sector since the judgement by District Judge Shamim A Qureshi in the Birmingham / Victoria Halls court case.  Often there is no satisfactory solution possible.

[Dinnertime Dave]

I often see this too. However, ADB states that a design that relies on an unrealistic or unsustainable management regime cannot be considered to have met the requirements of the regulations.

[kurnal]

It just beggars belief. Just completed a fire risk assessment in a new student block. The fire strategy and fire engineering report have been rubber stamped and approved by both the AI and  Fire Service and completion certificates issued.

Central single staircase, dead end corridors of up to 35m single direction of travel, 12 bed cluster flats,  stay put strategy, ventilation by AOV ( increased to 2sq m ) only in first 15m of corridor adjacent to staircase, remaining 18m dead end unventilated. The best bit is this nugget used to justify the 12 bedroom cluster.

"in the 12 bedroom cluster flats the common kitchen and living areas will be removed from the cluster therefore removing the area of greatest risk"

The outcome is of course that  every bedroom is now a studio and has its own full cooker sited, without comment in the documents, next to the  entrance door. 12 cookers each sited in a bedroom is considered a lower risk by all concerned than a single cooker in a protected kitchen? How is this nonsense being passed?

[mevans421]

Kurnal.

May I ask, do you at this stage:

1. Challenge BC and FRS on their decision to let the building be as is; or,

2. Note the variation and say if it was ok for BC and FRS then its ok with me??,

3. Note the variation and state the present arrangements are not acceptable, recommend additional (and likely) expensive compensatory measures and lose your client in doing so to another FRA'r who doesn't have BR knowledge so wouldn't have picked up anything of concern during his FRA and the client would feel a lot happier than for you getting involved again in the future???

The free, incompetent market - wonderful!!

[kurnal]

Nope. Its a variation of your option 2. I tell the client what a can of codswallop it all is, and put in in the FRA as a risk factor. I point out it is impracticable to make significant changes and therefore in compensation management, investigation, response must be all top notch. We take on the developer and the AI on other aspects of the design including the expanding pu foam "fire stopping" - where cables penetrate from the risers the builder has covered cavities with a patch of plasterboard glued on with solvent based no nails! This stuff melts about 85 deg C. Hmm.

I offer the client the suggestion of taking on the AI in court but they never have an appetite for that unfortunately.

[William 29]

Kurnal.

May I ask, do you at this stage:

1. Challenge BC and FRS on their decision to let the building be as is; or,

2. Note the variation and say if it was ok for BC and FRS then its ok with me??,

3. Note the variation and state the present arrangements are not acceptable, recommend additional (and likely) expensive compensatory measures and lose your client in doing so to another FRA'r who doesn't have BR knowledge so wouldn't have picked up anything of concern during his FRA and the client would feel a lot happier than for you getting involved again in the future???

The free, incompetent market - wonderful!!

Are there lobbies in the flats or I have missed that on the thread?

[kurnal]

Yes and no. Theres loads of issues William, far too many to go into but I just picked on this issue - that of false logic and false arguments that because they are contained in a fire engineering report they get through on the nod.

Reason is clearly because nobody ever bothers to read these reports.