Fire Risk Assessment - Drawings

[Chris Houston]

I've edited the above two posts, please avoid mentioning companies by name, we don't want FireNet getting sued if you libel anyone.

[colin todd]

Fair comment. I was just responding because the delightful Carol used the name of one of our major clients, knowing that we are their consultants.

[carol]

Sorry Chris.

Delightful is only marginally less annoying than being patted on the head...but then one must not disagree with Colin.

Perhaps you could explain the government's thinking behind the suggested inclusion of the following text in the revisions to ADB

Appendix G:

The following information should be provided...to assist the owner/occupier, etc to meet their statutory duties under the RRO.

Simple buildings

...an as built plan...showing;
escape routes, compartmentation, fire doors, detectors, etc, etc.

Why is the Building division saying this if the intention of the fire Division was to deny the right to require plans. So the cost is already there in this cases.

And yes, I know that it only applies to new build and material alterations but the principle is established.

[ian gough]

Carol: "..an enlightened FRS." I am very curious now - especially more so when you say that you normally visit places "bordering on S10" - wow! Where on earth could that be?
But perhaps this is becoming all too academic.
Anyway, seems there may be at least a couple of potential 'expert witnesses' here willing to aid someone at the wrong end of one of your 'enforcement notices' regarding the provision of plans.

[steve walker]

Interesting debate:

I think that we agree that drawings are not in themselves a requirement.

The arguments for them are:
They can help the occupier manage their premises;
Consultants can use them to assess the risk from fire;
The fire service can use them to assist fire fighting.

The main argument against them is their initial cost.

If drawings are produced then they may save money in the long run by saving time. Drawings do not have to be made by architects or consultants.

If drawings are not used to record some of the fire safety measures then they can be described in writing.

In the end it depends on the premises.

[colin todd]

Marginally less annoying? I am obviously making progress then. There may soon be room for me in the modern FRS at this rate. Anyhow, you have answered your own question. Only for new build. Jolly good idea. New build has all sorts of things that are not necessary in existing unless (oops this may get me into trouble) you are one of those who go around demanding intumescent strips here there and everywhere, or as I came across last week, demanding emergency escape light fittings in hotel en suite bathrooms.

[Graeme]

not a bad idea is that.If the fitting was maintained it could double up as a shaving light.

[colin todd]

But would need to be IP rated.

[PhilB]

Sorry to repeat the point but this debate really depends on what definition of significant findings you are using. I agree with Carol, how can you adequately show the preventitive & protective measures effectively in a complex building without a plan. If you can very well. Fire Certs didn't make plans a statutory requirement but most certs used a plan as it was the easiest option.

I know some of you believe significant findings are defects only. Once again I refer you to the ACOP for MHSW Regs. Mr Todd believes the ACOP will soon not be relevant, once again he is wrong.

The MHSW Regs will still be there and the employer will be told what significant findings are by the ACOP. The responsible person will also have to carry out a FRA to comply with RRO, and some proposed guidance gives a very different definition of significant findings. i.e. defects.

[Brian Downes]

My Brigade have already shifted from inspections to 'audits' under WFPL in anticipation of RRO.
 We no longer carry out a 'full survey', but we do walk all escape routes and other areas deemed to be 'risk critical'.
The FSO has to make his mind up on his feet in these areas.
I think the comfort blanket of a plan has led to some fire authorities using low grade inspecting officers to 'box tick' on fire safety inspections in order to meet output targets, instead of sending appropriately skilled professional officers who can interact properly with employers.
We look more deeeply at policies and procedures, testing, and training.
We no longer detail on a plan the 17 fire doors wedged open for the 10th year running.
If one door is wedged they have a problem, we identify it, and ask them to deal with it, and follow up.
I think this is the way to go, and will probably work well with companies who manage their precautions professionally.
For the others, at long last we are following the HSE enforcement module, and are serving enforcement notices if required.
And we don't have to amend those pesky plans all the time...my tip ex shares have dropped alarmingly!

[NEIL M]

well go to statinery box

[Graeme]

But would need to be IP rated.

and you could have a little man shaving instead of running legend.

edit-spelling

[colin todd]

The fire bits will be removed from the management Regs Phillip, so they will relate only to what they were intended for, namely health and safety, so taking away all your confusion.

[PhilB]

no confussion on my part Mr Todd but do you really think it will not be confussing for an employer to have one definition of significant findings(ACOP) and a responsible person to have another( Proposed RRO guidance)

[colin todd]

No I dont think so at all. There will be a minor decoupling of health and safety and fire safety.