mixed messages from Fire officers

[alfi]

Dear All

We recently completed an FRA on multi occupied commercial building and found the usual passive fire protection penetrations from poorly fire stopped cabling and pipes etc , including holes and gaps in the plant rooms . We recommended these are repaired by a competent company, and a fire stopping survey was completed to check areas we couldn't access  on the day. The client has since contacted me to say  he raised this with the local fire officer who has told him in writing   and I quote  "As the premises is currently occupied as Office accommodation, there would be no requirement under the Regulatory Reform Order (Fire Safety) 2005 to seal this gap with fire resisting materials. However, you may wish to consider sealing the gap for property protection, or as per your email cosmetic / privacy reasons."

This just sends mixed messages to clients 

[AnthonyB]

I assume they consider that the detection present, occupancy type, speed of evacuation and layout is such that any leakage of fire and combustion products from a plant room wouldn't compromise escape and not present a serious risk to relevant persons.

In other words done their own risk assessment - but have they actually visited the site and it's not really their remit either (although where does statutory advice end and become bespoke risk assessment?)

They may well be right, but pound to a penny if there was a fire and the firestopping issues led to increased loss you'd be hauled through over the coals (if not by the fire service by the client if their insurers are unhappy) whilst you are trying to point out that as property protection it's not your remit. Of course if it's a plant room that is a place of special fire risk due to contents then ADB (which goes to great ends about it being mainly for life safety) would lead it to require enclosure and fire stopping, so you have a contradiction.

And of course in the (admittedly very unlikely) event someone got hurt......

The fact it is in writing means they have a high degree of confidence in what they are saying - I've not seen the place so I can't honestly say they are right, wrong, or as is often the case somewhere in between!

At the end of the day advice needs to be proportionate and defensible - not mentioning it may be unwise, the judgement is to what weighting you put - recommendation only, compliance issue and what risk level.

[lyledunn]

Have the FRS learned frig all from Grenfell et al! It?s ok to have gaps where services pass through walls that are meant to be fire resisting. Yep, stuff that for a fundamental consideration!
Looking in from the outside, with respect to fire safety, there seems to be far too many cooks with too many menus and too many opinions.

[alfi]

Thanks for answers guys. I have written a robust response to the client as I know he has many buildings in his portfolio, and given the pressure on service charges I don't want him to use this advice from the FO to not undertake raised issues on this and other buildings. I stand by the FRA findings 100% and wont be swayed. We can't cherry pick locations on Fire stopping as it sends confusion and mixed messages.  ADB is clear in its definition on penetrations, and other areas on site were filled with expanded foam which is clearly not fit for purpose. My disappointment is  why the FO should take a tunnelled view knowing a client will probably see his advice and follow it, and that passive protection is just as vital. you wouldn't take a view on fire doors with small holes where the door closure had been changed, we all know about pressure and how smoke can be pushed through a small penetration

Anyway thanks for taking time to answer Anthony and Lyledunn

[colin todd]

You sure that the holes are in construction that is required to be FR in the first place?? bearing in mind that it is office accommodation.

[bevfs]

We recently completed an FRA on multi occupied commercial building and found the usual passive fire protection penetrations from poorly fire stopped cabling and pipes etc , including holes and gaps in the plant rooms . We recommended these are repaired by a competent company, and a fire stopping survey was completed to check areas we couldn't access  on the day. The client has since contacted me to say  he raised this with the local fire officer

Curious as to the responsible person,who has had a FRA completed,further to that and following the significant  findings within the FRA,has paid for a competent company come to come in, and carry out a fire stopping survey,identifying all of the fire stopping issues ,to then still question the work with the local fire authority??.Is this a case that the RP, is hoping to find the opinion that the fire stopping works don't need to done?If there were to be a fire and fire damage etc,then any insurance loss adjuster would surely be very interested in all the information the RP has been given.After all they are called Loss adjuster for a reason

[idlefire]

Hi Alfi,

I would say the local fire officer (if appointed under Article 27) speaks on behalf of the enforcing authority even if he is talking total cobblers (I do accept there are some that do talk total cobblers) and therefore his written words would go a long way to provide a possible  "defence" for the RP (Article 33) in the event of an "offence" (Article 32) being committed by him in relation to this matter.

In this particular case it appears that the fire officer is talking about a specific breach as he refers to it in a singular tense (i.e. "this gap" and "the gap") and this suggests to me that he has been given more information than we have been given in this post.

From the information I have seen in this post I would say that the fire inspector has made it quite clear that he is of the opinion that in this specific case, with regards to this specific gap, the fire authority does not believe the risk posed by the gap is sufficiently significant in terms of life risk to warrant them taking enforcement action under the RR(FS)O2005. 

The fire officer is most certainly not saying that there isn't a gap, that this gap isn't a breach in FR construction that was required by the Approved Document B/Building Regulations 2010 (for which the fire authority is not the enforcing authority) nor that there would be no benefits in making good this breach (he even gives examples benefits, some of which are outside the scope of fire safety).

The RR(FS)O2005 is risk based and not prescriptive legislation and I personally see no mixed message(s) on the part of the fire officer or the fire authority with respect to this matter. 

Furthermore, I eel the need to clarify a point someone else made on this thread, in that not all plantrooms are required to be enclosed by FR construction as not all plantrooms are "areas of special fire hazard" (as defined by the Approved Document B).

Notwithstanding the above, please remember that other opinions are available.