Access to different occupancy

[lyledunn]

I have a very large, single story social club which has now been divided in to two separate occupancies. I need to gain access from one separated part through the others reception hall to access a plant room which also houses alarm and electrical equipment. Such access would only be occasional.Building Control have said that they will not entertain an opening in the compartment wall. According to our Technical Booklet E, only doors necessary to allow emergency escape should be provided. I might be wrong but I cannot find that restriction in 9999?
I would appreciate your views.

[Davo]

lyle

Outside access possible, a lot easier!

davo

ps travel distance required to reach?

[kurnal]

I am sorry I don't have a current BS9999 but would point out that the BCO Is hugging his code and that's fine, what it needs from you is a counter proposal giving an equivalent standard of safety to that in the code.

You need to find out what the BCO concerns are, it might be that a fusible link shutter, fitted over the fire door will alleviate concerns over fire resistance, and resilience ?

[lyledunn]

Thanks Davo and Kurnal. You are absolutely right Kurnal, the officer is a hugger but is always very open to alternative views.
 Am I being thick but what is the concern about not permitting general passage if this was so desired providing the opening in the wall is fitted with an appropriately rated fire door? I note that such doors are not allowed in ADB but cannot see a similar requirement in 9999.
Davo, cannot get access from outside.

[kurnal]

The concern can only be that a general access door could breach the integrity of the compartment wall. It may be wedged open by staff, the plant room could be abused and used for storage, all very foreseeable.

[lyledunn]

Karnal,
I fully understand the concern but surely that applies to all compartment walls. Why is it that in ADB and Technical Booklet E general access is restricted only in situations of different occupancies? Bs9999 doesn't seem to have a similar restriction.

[Fishy]

Quick question... is this actually separate/different occupancies (i.e. separately occupied and managed), or is it different uses under the same occupier? 

If the former, then there are all sorts of reasons why it's a really bad idea!

[Tom Sutton]

If they are separately occupied and managed why haven't they got there own electricity supply and alarms?

[kurnal]

Hi Lyle
BS9999 is irrelevant to your case. Even if the clause is absent who is to say it's not an oversight, or omitted like many others were to save space? And in any case cherry picking is not the way forward.
The risk in multiple occupancies is increased due to a lack of control and the consequences of a fire made  more severe. In addition increased  difficulty for firefighters who may have to adopt two different operational tactics at the same fire due to the different occupancies.

You should consider Fishy and Toms points. But above all discuss with the BCO the nature of their concerns. Only by asking these questions will they examine their own concerns and between the two of you help find a mutually acceptable solution such as that mentioned in my earlier posting.

[lyledunn]

All our project designs use BS9999 so no cherry-picking goes on but your point about the omission is well made Kurnal. The thing is that NI Building Control accept that developments complying with 9999 achieve conformity with the NI Building Regulations. So if, as it would appear, there is significant concern about access in these situations then the omission is a serious blunder rather than a space-saving exercise. Nonetheless, it would seem that if I tried to defend the proposal, I would be nothing other than an errant code hugger. I agree with all of you, the risk is not at a tolerable level. We will have to find an alternative!
Many thanks.

[kurnal]

Lyle does your application of 9999 to all projects include the management systems too?

As for omissions it might be interesting to check out the relevant part of 5588 to see if it was included there.

[Fishy]

OK - assuming it's a MofE via a separate occupancy... the part that needs the means of escape that isn't in their premises being occupancy "1" and the other being occupancy "2"...

• security headache, as you cannot completely secure the shared doorset.  Therefore anyone in occupancy 1 can get into occupancy 2 at any time.  This can be managed, but may require restrictive and onerous physical and management security;
  
• Occupancy 2 can change the layout of their premises and block the route, or can put locks etc on doors either not realising or ignoring the impact it has on occupier 1 (I've seen this happen on numerous occasions);
• If you have a fire (or a fire alert) in occupancy 2, then the means of escape from occupancy 1 is no longer available.  Does this then mean that you need to simultaneously evacuate occupancy 1 if occupancy 2 is evacuated?
• There might be planned (and quite necessary) works needed in occupancy 2 that require the route to be temporarily inaccessible.  Does this then mean that Occupancy 1 cannot be occupied for the duration of the works?

...these are just some examples.  You could probably come up with a technical argument why all or most of the above could be dealt with in a manner that achieves acceptable fire safety (e.g. legal agreements can be drawn up) - but realistically how confident can one be that they'll be adhered to as the years pass and occupiers / managers change?  There was a time where this was fairly commonly used as a solution in environments where buildings were built side-by-side and back-to-back, or when a new building was constructed attached to an existing one, but in so many cases the management of it has failed to maintain the integrity of the route & those in the position of Occupier 1 have found themselves with inadequate means of escape with (in some cases) no straightforward means of restoring it.

[kurnal]

Fishy as I read it this door is for occasional assess to a plant room and not required for M OE?

Or maybe I have missed something?

[Fishy]

Fishy as I read it this door is for occasional assess to a plant room and not required for M OE?

Or maybe I have missed something?

Quite right... "Read the exam question before answering"!

No wonder I failed my A-levels...

[nearlythere]

I have a very large, single story social club which has now been divided in to two separate occupancies. I need to gain access from one separated part through the others reception hall to access a plant room which also houses alarm and electrical equipment. Such access would only be occasional.Building Control have said that they will not entertain an opening in the compartment wall. According to our Technical Booklet E, only doors necessary to allow emergency escape should be provided. I might be wrong but I cannot find that restriction in 9999?
I would appreciate your views.

You might find Lyle that many BC officers have never heard of any alternative guidance document to TBE. I spoke to one last year who had never heard of BS9999.