Hayfever

Really??? Article 2 of the FSO provides the following definition in relation to one of the two groups of relevant persons : “relevant persons” means— any person (including the responsible person) who is or may be lawfully on the premises; A trespasser or intruder therefore is not a relevant person so does not need to be considered during any FRA that may be required by the FSO. This is why you can bar and chain final exits when a business has closed

I have seen hatches in recent years on a new build specialist scientific laboratory that had specific technical needs due to the processes that were being performed there. (in particular pressure differentials in different spaces that needed triple inner room type layouts) The example given is really curious and seems fairly ordinary. However, like Anthony, I wonder what is happening outside door 2 as surely nobody would advise on the expense of a hatch if it wasnt needed......... would they?

On Grand Designs (House of the Year) tonight 23/11, they showed a 3 storey house which had a staircase from the top floor that discharged into an open plan living room/kitchen so did not provide a protected route to a final exit. Many years ago I was involved with a project where a similar arrangement was overcome by the use of a domestic sprinkler system in the living room. However, although Grand Designs didnt say there wasnt a sprinkler system present in this house, for the life of me I couldn't see any signs - even of a concealed head - but then being concealed, I may have missed. So my question is, when considering a loft conversion above a 2 storey house (to make a habitable space on the second floor) that will utilise a staircase that discharged into an open plan living/kitchen space, are there alternatives in addition to sprinklers to mitigate the lack of a protected staircase?

We use a rather more pragmatic approach to fire action notices (FAN) FANs by a final exit will rarely be read during business as usual and frankly when the final exit is in use during an evacuation, its a bit too late. We do place FANs by manual call points (including final exits), but frankly they are there to appease panicky fire safety inspecting officers. In addition, we also place them at tea points where staff gather and controversially at eye level (when sitting) on the back of toilet cubicle doors. The last example may sounds a bit silly/jokey, but it is the location where you have a captive audience who is unintentionally hungry to read something during their stay, as opposed to adjacent to a door to a staircase where nobody hangs around.

Tim There's a heap of "where necessary' entries throughout the Fire Safety Order, including Article 14 Article 14(2) states (2) The following requirements must be complied with in respect of premises where necessary (whether due to the features of the premises, the activity carried on there, any hazard present or any other relevant circumstances) in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons— -- -- (d)emergency doors must open in the direction of escape; So where necessary, (60 + persons as Anthony has described) the door must open is the direction of escape

This is exactly the set up I help establish for a range of secure buildings where is was untenable to allow such circumstances where people externally could nefariously open final exits and gain access, even with intruder alarm operation. We added mitigation of monthly manual override tests (on a rota of a small number per week which meant all units were tested in a 4 week period) plus additional signage, plus 2 fire drills per annum

Of course I understand the rational for this clause, but where green boxes are used to secure a final exit, surely having the external door unlock when the fire alarm operates is a security risk If intruders create smoke and introduce it into the building at 2am or on a Sunday,, all final exits open and they are in

We have a similar situation where we are fitting rapid chargers in a large 10,000m2 windowless basement car park under 14 floors of offices. The car park is fitted with sprinklers which are fed from an inexhaustible supply of water. This can only be a good thing as the fire service may struggle if the EV batteries are involved and the sprinklers may need to operate for many hours. Our strategy is to create introduce areas of non combustibility around areas set aside for EV charging and attempt to limit the fire loading by creating separated EVCBs (EV Charging Bays). Each EV charging bay will accommodate a limited number of cars and be separated to immediately adjacent areas by two hour fire resisting walls to provide some degree of protection from fire spread by direct burning. This is not traditional fire separation as the FR walls simply form a open ended barrier between groups of EV Bays. The aim is that sprinklers will prevent spread from EV Bay to EV Bay but not necessarily extinguish it. An interface connected to the sprinkler system will isolate charger power. Additional charger isolator controls will be positioned around the car park, adjacent to manual call points. They will be large mushroom head buttons which lock down when pressed and will need a key to release. They are coloured yellow and signed to prevent confusion with the manual call points. On operating the isolator button, the BMS system will alert building managers. We lose some parking space but the employers environmental policy is to go electric (EV) well before the 2030 target set by HMG and nothing will be allowed to get in the way. Within 5 years there will be at least 120 EV spaces created There are a raft of associated measures that accompany this policy. A few exit doors from the car park close to EVCBs will have panic bolts fitted to deal with the potential for rapid fire development. Staff training and instruction will be amended to include EV fires and servicing arrangements for the car park drainage will be amended to cater for long duration sprinkler and fire service operations We have found the RISCAuthority's RC59 Fire Safety When Charging EVs a useful guide https://www.riscauthority.co.uk/public-resources/documents/resource/rc59-fire-safety-when-charging-electric-vehicles-401 Good luck!

I have to say, I am totally convinced and very tempted to push P50s in perhaps a bigger building on our estate to show those who control the pursestrings how savings and compliance can be achieved. But its complicated and I need to choose the right time I was travelling through an airport with one of my directors about 18 months ago and pointed out P50s were in use and what they mean for us. I have also mentioned that the London Fire Brigade and other enforcement agencies are on board. But we have a crusty old (even crustier and older than me) H&S manager who is oppose to any change and has scared the hell out of the H&S board by saying they. are illegal . He will be retiring at the end of the summer and I will try again. I will definitely be contacting you Harry for your help at that time, as I am determined to see this change through. Thank you to both of you for your guidance

We have recently begun to use P50 foam on small remote premises (offices and small lock up warehouses). For our larger offices and sites we remain locked into traditional extinguishers The electrical fire risk at our remote sites is low, so IMO a P50 would suffice alone. But this poses a staff training dilemma as we would need to add another layer of possible confusion. "Never use foam on electrical fires - except P50s". To be honest, we haven't fully resolved that issue. So to keep the training easy, we supply P50s and CO2 and do not advise P50s on electrics. I am a huge supporter of innovation but I have had my fingers burned when applying new technology in the past. On my recommendation, we installed video smoke detection to one site. It has never been fully commissioned as it creates so many unwanted fire signals. We also used a hypoxic fire prevention system elsewhere, only to discover the power consumption was far higher than we were promised. Not exactly the greenest system! So you can see that albeit a fan of P50s, I am also a little nervous to install them at our biggest biggest building. With around 400 units being required here (and 2000 across the estate), I am anxious that some kind of product recall or change of mind by enforcement agencies would be very expensive for my employer and very problematic for me!!!! I will hold off for another year of so and see how our P50s in the remote sites fare and by then, I will perhaps talk to Britannia or Safelincs to get some reassurances before changing our policy.

I note from the Safelincs website, that Britannia are bringing out a P50 water mist extinguisher I wonder if there is anyone has any idea when this model might be released and the likely cost of the 6 litre version? (even a ball park figure price would do) I am trying to convince my employer to extend a trial of P50s (we have 4 at one site). We would like to extend the trial to 50 or so Foam (34A/183B) foam, but we would like to know what the cost benefits would be by choosing the water mist design (13A/21B) . I would rather keep the superior coverage - at least on some site. We current operate around 3000 extinguishers, so you can see why management wish to make the maximum saving per unit Also, are there any clear advantages or disadvantages when selecting the type of extinguisher other than coverage? Thanks

Thanks Tom, I do hope common sense would prevail here Unlike the HSE who have already issued more relaxed guidance, I have yet to see any such advice from fire safety enforcement authorities. Indeed, an enquiry I made with the London Fire Brigade's Fire Safety Dept has not even been acknowledged, let alone answered after 7 working days. I am sure there will be restrictions on non-essential staff travelling to non operational roles such as fire safety depts, but communication and reassurance surely must be a key role for the fire service at present? Take care

I am the building manager of a very large office building in central London providing 24/7 critical national services. The occupancy of the building is usual around 5,000 persons. Due to a COVID-19 strategy, the workforce in the building has reduced to around 380 who are spread across 78,000m2 of floor space. We usually maintain 200 Fire Wardens, but with such a reduction in staff numbers, the vast majority of them are at home and unable to carry out their core functions in an emergency - i.e. sweep an area of the building during an evacuation. Therefore we are unable to account for our staff for the foreseeable future We have considered our options which include gathering staff together on one floor or area. However, due to the processes carried on in this building, we are unable to due so, and the few remaining staff are spread out across the premises. Plus, the 380 staff that remain in the office are working long hours with minimal breaks, so it is not possible to stop them to provide training or briefings to equip them to undertake this role. In any case, the notion of not having enough staff to allow pairs of Wardens sweeping floors is untenable. In any case, we have curtailed all but essential meetings which makes training difficult. Due to our location, work carried out and difficulty producing a register of staff present it is not possible to introduce a roll call accounting system. I am at a loss as how to proceed. It is likely that these temporary staffing measures will be in place for many months and during that time I fear we cannot comply with fire safety legislation in respect of accounting for staff. This 'best endeavours' approach is nowhere near as resilient as our usual procedure. Do you think the fire safety enforcers/courts would be lenient at a time of national crisis? All of our fire safety infrastructure and processes are still in place, including PEEPS and a system of evacuating disabled staff (although ALL of those will be at home), its just the accounting for staff side of the procedure we can't do. I believe this falls under Article 11and Article 15 of the RRO I would be grateful for any views and opinions

I strongly disagree with this view. Virtually all Schools have open evenings and some catering for older kids will have evening productions and events. Whilst these events may be very occasional - which of course lowers the risk - the vulnerability of large groups of schoolchildren surely make EL a must for 99.9% of educational premises. Then there's the cleaners, teachers and assistants working late (or early!) and perhaps maintenance staff/contractors - all of which are relevant persons.

Thank you Tom It does seem a little wrong that leaseholders can be charged for the costs of a FRA, and/or for the work that arises from the significant findings, but have no rights to see the report When the leaseholders have been asked/told to replace their front doors,(for safety reasons) surely they come under Article 5(4) and are RPs in their own right?? (the RP in this case is a large local authority in London)