Exterior ramps

[lyledunn]

Consider the ground floor function room associated with a sports club. Occupancy set at 220. Two of the three emergency exits are direct to outside. Both have ramps immediately outside the door which are quite short and steep (300 rise on a 1200mm going). I am aware that 9999 and particularly building regs have specific requirements. In terms of acceptable steepness 1:12 seems to be max. As you can see, I have 1:4. Some mitigation might be available as ramps are painted yellow and both normal and emergency lighting is adequate.
The chap who did the FRA didn't mention it nor indeed did the council licensing officer. However, I see it as a definite concern but I am unable to quantify that concern in terms of priority. I would appreciate your opinion.

[Fire Monkey]

Hi,

1. What are the hazards and sources of ignition in the room - particularly by the 3 exits.
2. Do the ramps go to a place of relative or ultimate safety?
3. How wide are the ramps?
4. What material are the ramps made from and what levels of grip do they have.
5. Do the ramps have a flat surface by the door 1m deep?
6. Do the ramps have the require hand rails at the correct height?
7. Are the exit thresholds level or do they have a lip?
8. What are the expected numbers od wheel chair users, do they have helpers and are they fire wardens to assist with evacuations or are room hirers in charge of evacs?
9. Can all of the exits be included be included depending on their width?
10. Are the ramps solid and secure or temp ones?

With out photos or understanding the wider assessments is really hard to say what priority and timescale should be attached to this but would guess that it wold be a 2B (PAS79) as it does not meet the requirements of Part M.

[lyledunn]

Hi,

1. What are the hazards and sources of ignition in the room - particularly by the 3 exits.
None of significance
2. Do the ramps go to a place of relative or ultimate safety?
They are immediately outside door
3. How wide are the ramps?
Width of door, about 900mm
4. What material are the ramps made from and what levels of grip do they have.
Concrete
5. Do the ramps have a flat surface by the door 1m deep?
No ramp begins at threshold
6. Do the ramps have the require hand rails at the correct height?
No rails
7. Are the exit thresholds level or do they have a lip?
Level
8. What are the expected numbers od wheel chair users, do they have helpers and are they fire wardens to assist with evacuations or are room hirers in charge of evacs
2 at most with helpers
9. Can all of the exits be included be included depending on their width?
No
10. Are the ramps solid and secure or temp ones?
Secure

With out photos or understanding the wider assessments is really hard to say what priority and timescale should be attached to this but would guess that it wold be a 2B (PAS79) as it does not meet the requirements of Part M.
Mmmmm posting photos? Need my 10 year old nephew for that one!

Thank you

[Fishy]

Pretty basic H&S risk assessment stuff.  1:4 ramp is crazy steep and there's no way a wheelchair user could be assumed as being able to control their descent unassisted = safety risk.  You also ought to look at the run-off (for example does it just go into a patch of grass, or does it point straight at a road)?

If you could implement a management procedure that guarantees that use will always be assisted by people able to control their descent, then you might be able to convince yourself that it works OK as a means of escape - but if a wheelchair user tries to use it unassisted then it's a significant safety risk in itself (whether there's a fire or not).  If reducing the slope is just a matter of pouring a bit more concrete (i.e. they've got the space), then it's a bit of a no-brainer?

[lyledunn]

It is clear that building regulations are not being met and since building regulations have the purpose of providing for the safety of persons in and around buildings, the conclusion might be that the arrangement is unsafe. My original question was about quantifying the risk. Slapping another load of concrete down may, on the face of it, seem to be a mitigating measure, however unless accompanied by a landing area, kerbs guards etc it still remains unsatisfactory as far as building regulations are concerned. So, in order to reduce risk you must first of all establish the level of current risk.  Fire risk assessors advising on mitigating risk may do so with good intention but if the remedial work necessary still remains non-compliant, perhaps even introducing other unintended risks, then the assessor could find themselves subject to a negligence claim.
Hardly a no-brainer!

[nearlythere]

Was the 4:1 avoidable?

[Fishy]

It is clear that building regulations are not being met and since building regulations have the purpose of providing for the safety of persons in and around buildings, the conclusion might be that the arrangement is unsafe. My original question was about quantifying the risk. Slapping another load of concrete down may, on the face of it, seem to be a mitigating measure, however unless accompanied by a landing area, kerbs guards etc it still remains unsatisfactory as far as building regulations are concerned. So, in order to reduce risk you must first of all establish the level of current risk.  Fire risk assessors advising on mitigating risk may do so with good intention but if the remedial work necessary still remains non-compliant, perhaps even introducing other unintended risks, then the assessor could find themselves subject to a negligence claim.
Hardly a no-brainer!

On the contrary - it's an obvious hazard that constitutes a significant risk to any wheelchair user who might find themselves using it (whether in a fire emergency of for some other reason).  Lessening that risk (even if you don't achieve compliance with current regulatory guidance) will always have a positive impact, so long as you don't introduce other risks.  It's the job of the risk assessor to work out whether it leaves risk ALARP if the hazard is not reduced or eliminated.  After that it's the job of whoever designs the new ramp to pick up on all the relevant safety requirements and make sure the new configuration is acceptably safe.

I'm not sure what you mean by "quantifying" the risk, nor how useful that is?  Risk is generally comparative in nature and assigning numbers to it (if that's what you mean) is rarely helpful when it come to fire safety, in my experience...

[lyledunn]

Yes NT, it was. There is plenty of room for a properly constructed ramp but that was not the tenor of my query which was about quantifying the risk. My post was just fishing for opinions in that regard.
 Without any evidence to show that any of the 220 people that might use the exit would have any particular difficulty one can only say that the arrangement doesn't comply. To assess risk one must use experience, skill and judgement. To make judgement one must have appropriate evidence.

[lyledunn]

Fishy,
Sorry I posted after you replied. Quantifying risk in terms of priority is an essential aspect of risk assessment. Is ALARP the same as "tolerable", I don't think so.

[lyledunn]

I should say that there is likely to be only one wheelchair and assistance will be provided.

[nearlythere]

Of course it should be constructed to standard initially as nobody can predict the occupancy type for a public building of this type. How could it have got to this situation in the first place? Seems that someone read there needs to be a ramp and, without researching the matter, stuck in a "ramp". BC probably nodded it through as it was there.