Vessel

[lyledunn]

We have a permanently moored vessel with a permanent gangway to shore. It acts as a clubhouse for the sailing fraternity. It is licensed for 100 in the below deck saloon which has a low ceiling and would be crammed with this number. There are two exits, both up stairs. Discounting one set would leave a fairly narrow stair at600mm wide. There are no restrictions on the licence re disabled access. I feel that any one that might need to be assisted to escape would quite honestly be a significant danger to others in the event of a fire. It looks like the occupancy rate was struck on the yellow guide for a 2.5 min evacuation time. No chance of that with any thing other than able bodies! Is it acceptable to exclude the disabled in any fire safety strategy?
Should say this vessel has been used as a club from the early1970s and structural alterations are a non-starter.

[Mike Buckley]

As I understand it in a case like this the FSO will over rule the Equality Act. the reason being that the FSO is Criminal Law and the Equality Act is Civil Law. Criminal Law over rides Civil Law. There is also the issue of Penalties where the Act which has the more severe penalty overrules the Law with the lesser penalty. Again in this case under the Equality Act you can only be sued in the Civil Court whilst under the FSO you can be heavily fined and/or imprisoned.

The only issue which you would need to address is the question of being able to adapt the premises for non able bodied persons. Under the Equality Act you have the following duty.

The duty comprises the following three requirements.
(3) The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice
of A?s puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a
relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such
steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.
(4) The second requirement is a requirement, where a physical feature puts a
disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in
comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is
reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage.
(5) The third requirement is a requirement, where a disabled person would, but
for the provision of an auxiliary aid, be put at a substantial disadvantage in
relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled,
to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to provide the auxiliary aid.

The whole question comes down to 'what is reasonable?'

[wee brian]

All the boats along the thames that provide a similar facility seem to be wheelchair accesible to some extent.

[AnthonyB]

Unfortunately accessible doesn't always mean easily egress. Plenty of normal structures have been altered to be accessible, but when you throw a fire evacuation scenario in (which often takes out the normal methods of disabled access/egress) it all falls apart...

[Mr. P]

to take such steps as it is reasonable

Does this not cover it then? Demonstrate that it is not reasonable to make changes?

[wee brian]

You've got to be able to convince a judge...

Getting people on and off the top deck isn't very difficult. down below is a bit more of a challenge.

[colin todd]

What are the arrangements on your yacht, Bri, when you take the family to the Bahamas on your long holidays that I, the taxpayer, pay for?

[nearlythere]

Know where you are taking about Lyle and it's a tricky one.
Reasonable adjustment for access is the thing which enforcement authorities interpretation means shall make unreasonable adjustment.
The provision of an evac chair seems to cover all situations whether they are practical or not.
Box ticked.

[lyledunn]

What is it with you Colin? When I saw that you had contributed to my post I was very interested to see what you might have said, you being one of the country's best know experts on fire safety, but as what now seems usual for you, it was only a buffoon type snipe at one of your colleagues. Now you can heckle all you like on other people's posts but, with the greatest of respect, I would appreciate it if you would desist from doing so on mine as it often detracts from the kernel of the post. I would, however, always value your contribution when it is positive.

[kurnal]

I often observe such permanently moored craft and have similar reservations to you Lyle and Nearlythere . Legislation apart common sense suggests these really should be treated as a normal building because after all the fire would not know the difference and tenability crieria may even be worsened compared to a normal building not least due to ceiling height. On the other hand many similar vessels are not permanently moored, have no final exits when not moored rely entirely on  life rafts and bouyancy aids , no compartmentation and once again the fire would behave the same irrespective! Sorry to divert from the original query but I think considering the different scenarios does add a sense of perspective. I was on one such vessel last week  on holiday with numerous wheelchair users and it made me wonder what stance IMO and other relevant authorities  take in this regard.