Gated courtyard

[lyledunn]

A city centre restaurant has an escape door that exits on to a small courtyard carpark to the rear of the premises. The courtyard is not under the control of the restaurant and is normally locked during the evening when the restaurant would be open.  This would effectively pen the occupants escaping in to a small area circa 12x16m. Numbers would be no more than 100 and the walls of the restaurant are solid with no apertures.
There appears to be a degree of animosity with those controlling the gate and the key will not be made available.
What surprises me is that the restaurant is new and BC do not appear to have considered the situation. Whilst the courtyard may offer some refuge, the feeling of being trapped by the steel gates might tempt some folk to go back in to the building to try to find another way out. The FRA makes no mention of this.

[Owain]

A city centre restaurant has an escape door that exits on to a small courtyard carpark to the rear of the premises. The courtyard is not under the control of the restaurant

If the restaurant doesn't have a right of access to or over the courtyard then they would be committing a trespass if they use that door (possibly a trespass if they have an outward-opening door and just open it).

Unless they can obtain legal right to use, and effective management of, the courtyard and onward egress to the open, the 'escape door' should be closed off or clearly marked as 'not an exit', and a new FRA carried out.

On the other hand, it is possible that the courtyard owner is committing an offence by blocking an escape route, even if it is an escape route only de facto and not de jure

[AnthonyB]

When doing some research into easements, deed of variation, MoE licenses, etc it seems to be the case that if you don't have the paperwork in place or a break clause has been lawfully enacted to end an arrangement, then it's tough for the party who looses the escape.

The courtyard owner never gave consent for the escape to be present in the first place, therefore it's presence is (it seems) unlawful (in property law terms) and he cannot be guilty of obstructing it.

Someone has obviously dropped the ball on this by assuming the route could be used - I've been acting on both sides in the past and it's a pain if you are the one needing the escape.

A Deed of Variation or an easement is the usual answer, it can involve an ongoing 'rent' as well as the fees and charges for getting the other party to agree and draw it up, however it can be a protracted business and in one case I am familiar with the client opted to sell the property rather than try and get a new deed of variation - Despite the premises having secondary escape onto a steel external stair for decades a change in owner to the property on which the escape was sitting (and also used it) revealed that the existing license expired and he flat refused to agree an new right of access

[Phoenix]

Lyle,

It may be that your restaurant does have legal access to the courtyard and that the only stumbling block is the lack of an egress route from it.  If this is the case then an enclosed yard adjacent to the building and 12m x 16m in area cannot normally be regarded as a place of safety.  You will be aware that a "place of [ultimate] safety" is a place where people evacuating from the building are able to freely disperse away from the vicinity of the building.  The old test was that you could walk to a bus stop from a place of safety.

The main problems are the potential for harm caused by radiated heat, vulnerability to building collapse and the inability to account for people at the front of the building (where the fire service are likely to be trying to establish if anyone is unaccounted for).  

If, and this is a long shot (!), your courtyard was not adjacent to the building OR if the building was single storey and had no unprotected openings facing the courtyard AND if the restaurant staff supervised evacuation into the courtyard AND possessed some means for communicating between the courtyard and the front assembly point then you might be able to make an argument to accept this rear assembly point.  Otherwise no, I don't think so.

In similar situations I have had to lose the rear exit and find some good reason for accepting a single direction of escape to the front of the premises.  However, an occupancy of 100 makes this solution seem improbable.

[nearlythere]

Lyle,

It may be that your restaurant does have legal access to the courtyard and that the only stumbling block is the lack of an egress route from it.  If this is the case then an enclosed yard adjacent to the building and 12m x 16m in area cannot normally be regarded as a place of safety.  You will be aware that a "place of [ultimate] safety" is a place where people evacuating from the building are able to freely disperse away from the vicinity of the building.  The old test was that you could walk to a bus stop from a place of safety.

The main problems are the potential for harm caused by radiated heat, vulnerability to building collapse and the inability to account for people at the front of the building (where the fire service are likely to be trying to establish if anyone is unaccounted for).  

If, and this is a long shot (!), your courtyard was not adjacent to the building OR if the building was single storey and had no unprotected openings facing the courtyard AND if the restaurant staff supervised evacuation into the courtyard AND possessed some means for communicating between the courtyard and the fire front assembly point then you might be able to make an argument to accept this rear assembly point.  Otherwise no, I don't think so.

In similar situations I have had to lose the rear exit and find some good reason for accepting a single direction of escape to the front of the premises.  However, an occupancy of 100 makes this solution seem improbable.

Were BC involved Lyle? The fact it is not mentioned in the FRA surprises me not one bit. The country is full of butchers apprentices come fire risk assessors. On a Monday they know nothing about it. On a Friday they are made to think they know it all.

[lyledunn]

Yes NT, BC were involved. That was what surprised me. However, it appears that they accepted an alternative escape route through a kitchen area. That route bypasses the courtyard but was really only designed for kitchen staff. When I was there the the kitchen floor was covered in various stored materials and an obvious film of grease.

[nearlythere]

Uy

Yes NT, BC were involved. That was what surprised me. However, it appears that they accepted an alternative escape route through a kitchen area. That route bypasses the courtyard but was really only designed for kitchen staff. When I was there the the kitchen floor was covered in various stored materials and an obvious film of grease.

You are quite correct Lyle. The wisdom of BC never ceases to amaze me and at times they will whinge about a door an inch or two too narrow. Slippy foors. Hot pans. Restricted escape route.
And to crown it all BC bear no responsibility for its decision making.