Blocking a Final Exit During Scaffolding Works

[Messy]

I am dealing with a project which involves a significantly large amount of scaffolding being erected around a large building with many thousands of occupants.

In the planning stages, it was agreed that none of the 14 final exits would be closed during the construction of the scaffolding, except at weekends. Now there's been a change and the project team have informed me each final exit will need to be closed for a fortnight in turn to construct the arches/tunnels over that final exit. That is an aggregate of 28 weeks (>six months) of the loss of a final exit!! I am totally opposed to this change as it has been led by a 'need' to reduce costs, and shortening the programme is one method of saving cash. I can see no way of supporting this plan other than by reducing numbers of occupants. That is not an option.

The building is often occupied near to its maximum capacity and in my opinion, it is not acceptable for a single final exit to be lost for even an hour during peak occupation (8am to 6pm). I have suggested maintaining the agreement of weekend working and completing 2 x exits simultaneously. Alternatively, constructing the arches adjacent to the final exit and lifting, sliding or jackin them into position over a weekend. Neither of these options are acceptable.

I do not want to be unreasonable or be considered a jobsworth, but I cannot see how this plan is suitable. So have you faced this issue before? Are there any other options available that I have missed?

[Fishy]

Not this particular issue, but I've often dug my heels in over maintaining means of escape during construction, & my experience is that projects magically find a way to do what was deemed 'impossible' once they see that you won't be bullied...

[Bruce89]

Are there any realistic management control procedures in lieu of the temporary loss of a final exit that could be implemented ? Just a suggestion !

[Messy]

I really cannot think of any temporary management control measures that would be suitable

The building's occupancy figures have been calculated without considering the loss of a staircase as all staircase approaches are lobbied. OK, it is rare for the building to be full to the brim, but even a conservative estimate would see 600 to 680 persons using each final exit during an emergency evacuation. Fire drills have shown that the building is full as there is regularly some queuing on escape routes

For a neighbouring exit to take the additional strain of a 100% increase in flow is problematic. Plus the 'diversion route' from the closed final exit and an alternative means staff coming out of a protected route and often through open plan areas, thereby making travel distances excessive.

My approach to fire safety could be described as a 'can do' attitude in that I enjoy using lateral thinking and innovative solutions to make things possible. But I think this issue has beaten me and I will have to insist that an alternative solution is applied which is that the exits are not closed in working hours and management put their hand in their pockets to extend the project programme/costs accordingly.

[nearlythere]

I don't think we should be too hasty here until an assessment has been carried out of the impact the proposal would have on the means of escape. Perhaps the reduced means of escape would not prejudice the adequacy of the means of escape for the maximum occupancy factor Messy and a properly thought out strategy for the duration of the works may be adequate?

[Messy]

.............. and a properly thought out strategy for the duration of the works may be adequate?

And therein lies my problem. I have considered a number of options, but I cannot think of any measures that would provide a suitable strategy other than engineering solutions (to the scaffolding as described in post No1) that the project team have rejected.

I'd be grateful for suggestions....

[nearlythere]

What I'm trying to get across firstly Messy is in relation to the maximum occupancy factor and the escape route widths. Are the existing escape routes at their limits, width wise, for the occupancy? Have you measured up and calculated the maximum occupancy capacity the escape routes can cope with?

[Messy]

Thanks for your replies:

A couple of years ago the responsible person wanted to rationalise his estate by looking to close at least one building. Therefore a full survey was carried out at the building in question in relation to that rationalisation plan and to create the current MOE strategy. One aim of the survey was to inform the Responsible Person the maximum number staff could be occupied in the building. The detailed survey looks at floor capacities and breaks down each staircase and final exit into maximum permitted numbers based partly on exit widths.

It is this document that has assisted me in determining that losing a final exit is not possible when other engineering/technical options are available

[lyledunn]

CDM will require the principal designer to attend to the change in design approach. He or she should evaluate your concerns. If, as you say, fire safety in the building will be reduced to a less than tolerable level, they will have to alter the design proposal.

[Messy]

CDM will require the principal designer to attend to the change in design approach. He or she should evaluate your concerns. If, as you say, fire safety in the building will be reduced to a less than tolerable level, they will have to alter the design proposal.

Many thanks. I hadn't considered the CDM approach and responsibilities

[Fishy]

CDM will require the principal designer to attend to the change in design approach. He or she should evaluate your concerns. If, as you say, fire safety in the building will be reduced to a less than tolerable level, they will have to alter the design proposal.

Many thanks. I hadn't considered the CDM approach and responsibilities

CDM is certainly also relevant, and would apply to the works concurrently with the RR(FS)O (assuming the building is in England...).

For what it's worth, if I were you I'd dig my heels in - sounds like you've done everything reasonable to accommodate them?  People erect scaffolding over building entrances/exits more or less every day without needing to close them for weeks to do so.

[bevfs]

what was the outcome in this one messy? Who in their right mind  would accept responsibility for the blocking of a fire exit (in the light of the evidence requiring that amount of exits,-max occupancy)

[Messy]

Sorry, I should have come back with an update:

We had a rather large meeting with managers & stakeholders from all sides. I presented my view and the designers stated theirs. I was accused of 'working against business by my managers'. I explained I was doing my job!!! It became clear that the problem could be avoided if the scaffolding erection (and the later dismantling) were scheduled out of hours,  the 58 hours or so between 19:30hrs on the Friday, to 06:00hrs on the Monday. There was plenty of contingency safety margin available, but I did accept the costs would be vastly more expensive.

The Project Manager whinged on about budgets and overtime working ....., and we were coming to a point where it looked like a stalemate position was inevitable. I suggested we bring the local fire safety enforcement team in to act as an arbitrator, with their decision (when it was received in writing) being final. All parties agreed. The meeting ended before lunch.

The next day at 10:00, even before I had contacted to local fire safety inspectors, the Project Manager contacted me and said a decision has been made to go with the out of hours build idea. I knew he was up against the ropes and said I would only sign the proposal off if the contractors agreed to pay substantial penalty fees if they overran the 06:00 finish deadline. (Frankly, I didn't believe they were committed to the programme).

3 days later and all parties had signed up to the out of hours install and penalty fees and the build has already started. We have had a hiccup with neighbours complaining about the noise at 3am! but that is not my problem

1-0 to me I reckon