Irish bar

[lyledunn]

Consider a wee single room typical Irish bar. The room (8mx4m)has a wooden bar and apart from that there is nothing else to burn. The bar has a lobby with front doors pinned back and inner door opening inwards against egress flow. Now the place has Irish music at the week-ends and thus requires an entertainment licence, which was granted many years ago. The licence restricts occupancy to 60, presumably because there is no alternative MOE and the entrance door opens in. Structural adjustments are not a current option. Along comes a rather well known company to undertake a FRA. This was at the behest of the local council that issued the licence. The assessment slashes occupancy to 30 because of the two points above. This effectively destroys this mans trade. Currently licence and FRA conflict but I assume that the FRA occupancy is the one that prevails as it is lowest??

[William 29]

For what reasons has the FRA reduced the occupancy to 30? Can you be more specific?

[kurnal]

Which country is this in Lyle?

[lyledunn]

Northern Ireland. Reasons for reduction 1. Inward opening door 2. Only one MOE. I assume that the original license was granted using the yellow guide which I think used 50 or 60 max for such situations. To be fair, with 60 in the wee bar there would be a fair press of people. Maybe the assessor was concerned about the ability to open the door inwards in an emergency. Hard to conceive of an an accidental fire although I suppose a fair amount of smoke could be produced fairly quickly by say malfunctioning electrical equipment, not that there is much of it. The key point is what to do in the meantime in terms of occupancy. Would there be legal or insurance implications?

[William 29]

Ok, do you know the width of the single doors? Can these inner doors be pinned back in the open position at all?

[Dunbar]

It's very tricky for an assessor to move away from guidance on this one as it doesn't need to be a fire that causes the crush it could be a fight in the bar. Rush for the exit people get hurt in the crush its likely to come back as a compensation claim

Where are they going to look for evidence of occupancy numbers? The FRA obviously as that should identify means of escape.

We had something very similar recently; the licence allowed for 2.5 times more than the single exit allowed for. The advice was that the guidance said ...... but due to the nature of the premises; limited combustibles, good early warning through enhanced detection, good visibility, trained staff, good management, not a rowdy bar; they could have a percentage more than the prescriptive number however during busy times they needed to monitor occupancy levels and limit access. Owners not happy but who could blame them, more people more drinks sold; pub stays open and doesn't become one of the 30 or so a week shutting their doors. We also recommended they complete a survey of numbers over a few weeks just to see actually how many they are getting in; it could be that they never get over the guidance limit at all or that during their busy periods they are only a few over.

[kurnal]

Based on general Licensing and building guidance applicable to the rest of the UK then the previous limit appeared primal facie to be broadly compliant and arguable  but before going down this path is there some additional guidance in TBE  / DHSPS relating to licensed premises in NI?

[Messy]

Along comes a rather well known company to undertake a FRA. This was at the behest of the local council that issued the licence. T

To be clear - are you saying the council told the person in control to have a FRA completed - or to have one completed by using that specific company? (because that is how it reads!)

[nearlythere]

Along comes a rather well known company to undertake a FRA. This was at the behest of the local council that issued the licence. T

To be clear - are you saying the council told the person in control to have a FRA completed - or to have one completed by using that specific company? (because that is how it reads!)

Council's which enforce ELs in NI now ask for FRAs before issuing or renewing ELs.
Lyle. Can you email me name of well known company.

[Phoenix]

If I was representing the landlord, I would ask for precise details of why 30 is deemed a safe maximum.  There is good established evidence to support the maximum figure of 60.  The landlord deserves and should at least be provided with evidence that clearly demonstrates that it is unsafe for more than 30 people to resort to his or her premises.  Without such evidence it would have to be assumed that the common figure of 60 applies.

It would not be satisfactory for the evidence to take the form of the qualitative opinion of the one fire risk assessor who compiled the report.  If this is what the evidence is then perhaps the fire risk assessor could be asked if 31 would be an unsafe number and, if so, why?

There is a suggestion in the foregoing posts that the fire risk assessor has compounded the constraints that are necessary due to, 1) the single escape route, and 2) the inward opening doors.  No one denies that each aspect requires some constraint in the numbers but if the two factors have independent effects on the means of escape then it is wrong to compound them.  I would suggest that the factors are almost independent of each other.  One is concerned with the time it takes for people to pass through a doorway and the other is concerned with the ability of the occupants to open the door - once the door is open it makes little difference if the door opens inwards or outwards.  

There is a logical argument that tends to indicate that 60 would be the more accurate figure to apply.  The argument goes:

1. Current guidance assumes that if there are no more than 60 people using an inward opening door then those people will have no difficulty opening it (this is evident from the fact that we accept inward opening doors for up to 60 people).

2. Given that there is no difficulty in opening the door then it is reasonable to assume that the door will be fully open during an evacuation.

3. Given that we have a fully open single doorway leading from a room then we will allow 60 people in that room.

I would accept that the factors may not be completely independent as the time it takes to open the door may slightly affect the time it takes for people to leave the room so maybe the figure of 60 should be adjusted down slightly.  I also accept that none of us have seen this building and there may be complications about which we know nothing.

Sometimes one has to be pragmatic and maybe rehanging the inside doors might be an easy answer that avoids conflict.

[lyledunn]

Phoenix, I am not sure where the acceptable limit of 60 was derived other than to say that it has been around for some time. Can you tell me where the "good established evidence" is sourced? The owner of the bar is a loveable rogue and had his FRA occupancy been set at 60 he may have equally asked the legitimate question, why not 61?
I remember as youngsters we used to see how many of us could squeeze in to a telephone box. I was always glad that the door opened out especially when, inevitably, someone let rip!
Anyway, is this not a case in point which demonstrates the difficulty in straying from guidance, custom and practice? Maybe I should be applauding this assessor for taking a bold stand rather than criticising him for not rigidly sticking to industry standards!
Turns out that I know the assessor. He was acting independently but stupidly used his company's form for completing the assessment. Still, he is not for shifting. He does have a point that 60 would be a sardine can situation and in a panic the inward opening door might be a severe impediment. He accepts that the wording of guidance is that doors on escape routes should preferably open out but that this is a get out clause for small shops etc and should, in his opinion, never be applied where intoxicating liquor is consumed.
I am stuck now! Do I request another assessment in the hope that he or she will up the occupancy, or do I say to the client, listen bud, those doors need to be removed and if your customers complain of the cold draught tell them it is better than being consumed in a fire!

O

[wee brian]

if the inner doors open into a lobby then why not switch the higes so they open out?

[Tom Sutton]

From the Post War Studies,"The matter of practical convenience cannot, of course, be allowed seriously to prejudice life safety, and it is recommended that in all cases where the number of persons in a room or floor area exceeds 40, the doors serving it should, regardless of other considerations, swing in the direction of exit travel or both ways". This was arbitrarily increased to 50 in the blue guide for FPA and to 60 in the first ADB.

However could this limitation be based on occupancy factors not inward opening doors 32 sq m isn't very big?

[Phoenix]

Hi Lyle,

The evidence is, in small part, the research that went into the guidance and, in large part, the test of time.

What you're saying about sardines makes me think that the lower figure might be right.  It sounds like item 1. in my logic flow is not valid due to extreme population density and, therefore, the two subsequent conclusions do not hold.  The guidance for a limit of 60 does not cater for extremes in either direction and this may be one of those times when we have to make a more specific judgement rather than relying on guidance.

[kurnal]

Squashed in like sardines is a subjective judgement. Why not defer to the tried and tested density factors?