MOE from multi tenanted building

[Mar62]

Hi all, a premises a client has in London had a very small contained fire this morning. apparently a faulty light switch started smoking and the alarms sounded and its monitored so LFB turned out. I don't know any other details yet but the LFB inspecting officer is visiting tomorrow (Thurs) so i have been asked to attend. The building has a single staircase, with exit door onto a narrow but busy side street just off of Tottenham Ct Rd. The building probably has about 40 - 50 people in it absolute max. Most of the time we do fire drills there is less than 25. The LFB officer today is insisting that the exit door is fitted with a panic bar (although the door currently opens inwards). Changing the door to open outwards would effectively close the pavement? Opening the door outwards suddenly would cause more risk!  Any suggestions and has anyone ever heard of this from LFB ......

[nearlythere]

Hi all, a premises a client has in London had a very small contained fire this morning. apparently a faulty light switch started smoking and the alarms sounded and its monitored so LFB turned out. I don't know any other details yet but the LFB inspecting officer is visiting tomorrow (Thurs) so i have been asked to attend. The building has a single staircase, with exit door onto a narrow but busy side street just off of Tottenham Ct Rd. The building probably has about 40 - 50 people in it absolute max. Most of the time we do fire drills there is less than 25. The LFB officer today is insisting that the exit door is fitted with a panic bar (although the door currently opens inwards). Changing the door to open outwards would effectively close the pavement? Opening the door outwards suddenly would cause more risk!  Any suggestions and has anyone ever heard of this from LFB ......

I don't think you are allowed to open a door across a pavement. You need to ask the IO to justify this.

[Dinnertime Dave]

Doesn't the fire risk assessment cover it. The building occupancy numbers/use either makes it suitable to be inward opening or not. Based on what you have said it's suitable. IO aren't always right.

Is any relevant person at a significant risk?

[Mar62]

Hi yes you're right. I cannot see how it can be done. You would have to literally barrier off the whole pavement to make it happen. I have been doing the assessments here for about 7 years and have had numerous visits and inspections. Some IO's have even complimented on the quality of the assessment! I will let you know what happens after the meeting tomorrow.

[Mar62]

Ps no persons are at what I would see as being at significant risk. All able bodied, awake etc. No sleeping. Just offices. When I do the evac's every six months everyone is out within about 2.5 mins and there has never been more than about 25 people.

[Owain]

I don't think you are allowed to open a door across a pavement.

I don't think you are either. It's probably a breach of a Highways Act or something, and not something the IO will be able to overrule.

If the door has to open outwards then it will have to be brought into a recess in the building.

If that can't be done eg if the foot of a staircase is too close to allow the door to be moved inwards, then could the door be locked open against the inside wall during business hours and the staircase monitored by an alarm or CCTV against miscreants?

[Mar62]

There isn't really space to bring the doors inwards but worth a thougt though about the staircase bit but I know tenants won't compromise on the security. This is the building where about 5-6 years ago a guy ran in with a fake IED strapped onto him and threatened to blow up people.

[Owain]

about 5-6 years ago a guy ran in with a fake IED strapped onto him and threatened to blow up people.

Oh. By miscreants I was thinking someone having an illicit pish.

[AnthonyB]

Usually if you put your point across with rationale as to why you don't need a feature, in this case panic furniture (occupancy numbers and profile, restrictions on door direction, etc) with reference to the various guidance where applicable, then the IO goes quiet. If not then it's appeal or determination time.

I had a site that IO's had visited for years and then all of a sudden wanted smoke seals on all the bedroom doors, a reasoned argument as to why this was only aspirational and was to be achieved over time rather than in one fell swoop was given and the requirement was dropped.

[Mar62]

I'm glad that I'm not going mad then with this then!! Thanks all for your comments.

[Fishy]

The fire authority representative can only recommend - he cannot "insist" unless via an Enforcement Notice (and I'd be completely amazed if this was on the cards in this case).  The fire authority has a statutory duty to provide advice and guidance, but that's very different from having the power to require works be done (outside the EN process).

Often IOs use an assertive manner & the uniform to get fire safety improvements made where they (strictly) have no power to force the RP to make those improvements - and there are times when this is a really good thing for public safety.  Some don't know where to draw the line, though, and in these cases their bluff needs to be called.

If I were you I'd suggest your client thanks him profusely for his help and assure him that it will be subject to immediate consideration (with no offers to update or notify them of the results of the results - and avoiding any commitment to do what has been suggested).  Then you're at liberty to advise them what the safe and sensible thing to do is.

[Mar62]

Ok thanks for all your comments, so the outcome is that the comments about the doors were made by the Incident Commander and not the IO. Met IO today and he is perfectly happy with the door arrangement. But Enforcement notice being issued on no AFD in common areas (which I have been pushing for last several years) and also wants AOV window vent at 4th floor of the staircase.

[Phoenix]

What's the AOV for?  Under normal circumstances, the opening of an AOV when there is no capacity for significant replacement air at low level is to reduce the pressure in the space being ventilated, i.e. the staircase.  The 'stack effect' means that warm air in the building will leave the AOV quicker than replacement air can enter through the tiny gaps at low level.  In the event of a fire, the reduced pressure will have a tendency to draw smoke into the staircase.  This will be particularly significant if there are any gaps around a fire door to a fire room or if a door to a fire room fails to close fully.  This would not assist means of escape and could be disasterous if anyone in the building has impaired mobility. 

If they want to assist firefighting access then a manually openable vent at the head of the stairs (yellow box at access level) would be suitable.  But nothing you have said would indicate that this can be asked for under the FSO.

Also, everyone's comments about the swing of the door were correct.  You cannot have a door swing out over land you do not own. 

[Mar62]

Hi Phoenix, thanks for your comment. I am also wondering where the AOV requirement came from. He said AOV with manual break glass. I can't find any requirement for this so will need to clarify it with him. Thanks for commenting though

[bevfs]

Having an inspecting officer recommend improved  standards i.e. smoke seals, on bedroom doors for a sleeping risk premises, and a risk assessor arguing against such seals and the fire authority stepping back from enforcement should not be seen as a trump for the risk assessor or the RP. The fact that standards change through the years and through inspections business owners are being asked to update their premises surely should be seen as a good thing in keeping  thinks up to date(with regards to fire safety)!