Alan Cox's newest comments

Stuart,
Could you let me know which document that you are
quoting from and is this a situation that you have at present or just querying?

Regards Alan

Stuart,
I think I understand your question - when you remove 1 exit from the calculation this is because in an emergency situation you may loose that exit due to a fire or other unforeseen situation - obviously, this may not happen, so in most circumstances you will be left with the 2 exits so there should not be a problem.
If however you did lose an exit the remaining exit should be capable of allowing the number of people in the room to evacuate the area within the specified time.
You also need to consider the way the doors open, do they lead to a place of ultimate safety, the type of occupancy, any changes in levels, obstructions, door fastenings etc.

I hope that helps but if not please get back to me.

Regards Alan

Hi Shaun,
I was wondering what your interest was in this document as I am in the process of writing on article on Hotel Fire Safety and will be including my thoughts on the HOTREC Guidelines.
You may wish to look at http://www.anec.eu/attachments/ANEC-PR-2011-PRL-022.pdf if you have not already done so.
Regards
Alan

Hi Wayne,
Thanks for the update - you need a clear instruction from the owner/occupier stating if this is to be a fire resisting door and to what standard and this should be shown in the Fire Risk Assessment which the owner/occupier should have.
Unfortunately, I can't tell you if the existing door is a fire resisting door without seeing it but if it has fire resisting glazing, fire and smoke strips and is self closing it will almost certainly be a fire resisting door set which as I stated earlier you would normally find in this type of location. If you decide to replace a fire resting door with a non fire rated door you should make sure that you clarify this with the owner/occupier preferably in writing.
It is possible to maintain a the fire resistance of a double swing door but you need to be sure that the door and ironmongery that you use have been tested together for the required fire resistance which is normally 30 minutes and here again I would recommend that you get this in writing and give copies to the owner/occupier.
I hope that helps but if not please let me know.

Regards

Alan

Wayne,
I'm not sure that I understand your question - are you asking this a member of staff or as a member of the public? Is this a "fire resisting door" or one used for escape purposes or is it provided for both purposes?
Usually, doors from kitchens into public areas are "fire resisting" doors that are also sometimes used for escape purposes if there is no other way out but there can be a problem maintaining the fire resistance with some types of double spring hinges.
You may find the answer in the Fire Risk Assessment that should have been carried out but if not please could you provide further details.

Regards Alan

Robin,
In order to answer your question you will need to consider the following:

1. How many people will be employed in the new office?
2. Is the area with the fire exit a higher risk e.g. boiler room or kitchen?
3. How many people would need to use this exit?
4.Does the fire exit have an emergency fastening?
5. Will the fire exit from the new office obstruct the existing fire exit?
6. Is the exit at ground level and does it lead to "ultimate safety" e.g. not an enclosed court yard?

Regards Alan

Stephen,
Could you let me have your email address and I will send you details.

Regards
Alan

Mike,

I refer to your comments about "this is not the forum to discuss the contents and implications of the Articles of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order." and would like to find out why you feel that people can be confused.

Fire safety is not an exact science and therefore there can be more than one solution to a problem and the guidance to Fire Risk Assessments makes this very point so why is this not the forum to discuss alternative approaches? I accept that there are people that give advice that is not accurate and where I see this I try to point them in the right direction and am always happy to provide answers both on and off line - in fact much of my advice is given off line because sometimes I need to see photographs to clarify a point. The advice is also given free and on the basis of the information provided.

If you don't agree with my advice you are at liberty to respond and give a different point of view and that is what this forum is all about and suggesting that we don't discuss these items and simply reiterating what the guidance says is not very helpful to those persons that have little knowledge in this area.
Consider your reply to Philip on the 1st Dec "If the exits provided were required by previous legislation, (such as the Fire Precautions Act 1971) then they must be maintained under the current legislation." this is clearly not true and was why I asked you on what basis you made that statement and you replied "for those wondering where our view is obtained, you need to understand the content and implication of the Articles of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order to fully appreciate what is required by Law. “ well I understand the implications and I still can’t see how you have arrived at this statement. Please feel free to point me in the right direction.

Regards
Alan

Michael,
The answer is very clear to this question and it is "any door which a person needs to use in the event of a fire should not be so locked or fastened that it cannot be immedialy and easily opened by a person on their way out".
If the Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) indicates that these Fire Exits are required then they should be available but if the document states that they are not required then they can be taken out of use and the signs removed. It may be that only one exit is required and if this is the case the FRA should cover this.
I hope this helps.

Regards

Alan

Barry,

This is one of the problems with fire safety enforcement as you have experienced for yourself. Some fire officers go strictly by the book and others use common sense and it is a problem that I have experienced for many years and will usually come down to the officer's experience or lack of it.

If you look at Iain's comments which I have responded off line to you will note that
he stated "I would expect the sign to be visible and would not have accepted such a notice on the door edge." when I asked him why he stated because of the visibility of the sign but when I sent him details of the sign he replied "As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. I was no visualizing something like this! I would agree that this is conspicuous enough."

It's very easy to get tunnel vision when looking at fire safety measures but what you have to look at is what works and not necessarily what the rules say and fire officers with little experience don’t always have that skill but as a responsible person you have to develop the skill of “questioning and asking why” and answers that this is what the rules state should not be taken at face value.
When I responded to Ian’s question I informed him of some trials that I had carried out in a Nurses Home which was like a large letter H and I did one side with face fixed signs and one with door edge signs to test their impact – the result was that with the face fixed signs only 50% of the fire doors remained closed whilst with the door edge signs over 90% remained closed. So it was clear to me which was the most effective and when I tell people about these trials they generally accept the argument.

Remember that you don’t have to slavishly follow the rules as long as you can show that what you are doing is equivalent or better than the accepted standard.


Regards
Alan (mail@alanfcox.co.uk)

Hi Iain,
I am interested in your comment about "I would expect the sign to be visible and would not have accepted such a notice on the door edge." I developed this idea on the basis that you only need to be aware that the fire door needs to be kept shut when it is open because if it was shut it was not a problem - you appear to have a different view and I would be pleased to hear your reasons.
I have discussed this with many fire officers and explained the reasoning behind it and they have normally accepted it.
Whilst I would accept that face fixed signs are the normal practice - when you have special circumstances and you can demonstrate that they work i can't see why you would object to them.

Regards

Alan

Maggie,
This is a question that I see on a very regular basis and my reply would be "why don't you wish to label the door?"
Any guidance that is usually provided on the subject will inform you that it should be indicated as a Fire Door and Kept Shut and this makes common sense but I still find many fire doors "wedged open" even with a label on. There are many other advantages of providing labels but I won't go into them now.
If you don’t like the label because of the aesthetics I devised one some years ago that you could put down the edge of a door which was only evident when the door was open – maybe this would provide an answer for you.
It doesn't really matter where the intumescent strip is fitted provided that this is where it was and the same strip that was used in the original fire test on the door.
I hope this helps but if not please feel free to get in touch.

Regards
Alan (mail@alanfcox.co.uk)

One of the problems that I frequently encounter with the emergency notification procedure for sites where they call a receptionist first in an emergency is that they don't usually have a seperate dedicated number for an emergency service and just use the normal number. The problem here is that it can be engaged or the Receptionist will not be aware that it is an emergency and so they have to install a seperate dedicated number such as 222 which is recognised throughout the site and displayed on all emergency notices and phones.
The other problem that I encounter is that when I ask if the Recepition is permanentally manned they normally answer yes but when I ask who covers during breaks many organisations indicate that sometimes no one is available.
Where you have a professional, well trained and staffed switchboard such as in a hospital then allowing the telephonist to make the 999 call may be the best way to handle the situation because there are a number of other actions that have to be planned but in other situations it may be better to allow the caller to make the first call to the emergency services.

It is not correct to state that "If the exits provided were required by previous legislation, (such as the Fire Precautions Act 1971) then they must be maintained under the current legislation." because the conditions could have changed and this is new legislation based on risk assessment and not prescriptive guidance.

It is also not correct to say "It is not acceptable to suggest that a portion of a fire escape route can be obstructed and it would be folly to allow this to occur." for the same reasons. From the description that Philip has provided together with the pictures he has provided I have given my observations and sent him a copy of the relevant guidance and I think that has helped in the decision making process.

Obviously, if you only need a certain width of escape route to evacuate a given number of people then it is both a waste of valuable floor space and totally unneccesary to advise someone that they need to maintain twice the required area.
Also to suggest that they need to maintain this because of the previous legislation is quite clearly incorrect and is not something that is reflected in the current guidance.

Hi Mike,
On what basis do you make that statement?

Regards

Alan

Philip,
Thanks for the information - just a little concerned about the basement sales area - I assume that there is a public access staircase from the ground floor down to the basement - is this at the front of the shop? Then is there a seperate stairs from the basement to the ground floor and is this always kept clear and does it have any fire doors?
Some pictures may help.

Regards Alan (mail@alanfcox.co.uk)

Philip,
From the situation that you describe you have obviously acted correctly and the company have responded to your actions which is good but of course they should not have let this happen in the first place.
This appears to me to be about the number of people that are in the building and that may need to use this exit and this is the part that is missing from your question. Could you give me some guidance on this and the width of the door leaf and escape route? For small numbers of people this may be acceptable but if it was for large numbers including the public this may not be satisfactory.
Is the area that constitutes the escape route clearly marked both internally and externally with instructions for it to be kept clear?

Regards

Alan

If you are from a fire service background it's very easy to take the view that Peter has but we have to remember the following points before we comment on the case:
1. Do we yet know all of the facts and truth about what happened at this tragic incident?
2. Should we not be thinking about the relatives and friends of those that died?
3. Unless we know the truth about what happened - how will we ever prevent this happening again?
4. If you believe in British Justice and these people that are charged did nothing wrong then why shouldn't the case go to Court?

The emergency services are not above the law and I have never had confidence in the police investigating their own complaints just as I don't have confidence in the fire service investigating their own complaints. I think that this can only do good for the fire service if we learn the real truth about what really happened and learn from this tragic incident. I have seen too many incidents in the past covered up for the good of the organisation involved but not for those involved.

Andy,

I would suggest that your first action is to find and remedy the cause of the false alarms because if you keep getting them the occupants may think that the next alarm is false and not act quite as responsibly as they should in a real emergency. You should register your concern with the responsible person and ask for the problem to be rectified because not only does it cause confusion and complaceny but is also costly to business.

Having said that there is no harm in counting the odd false alarm as a fire drill providing you register it as such and are able to prove that you have taken some action to report or rectify the false alarm. I don't believe that taking a series of false alarms as fire drills is good for anyone or shows that you are acting responsibly.

You might want to sit down and cost the false alarms in lost business, staff hours and Fire Service costs and give it to the offending organisation and see what they say.

Regards

Alan

The safety of residential accomodation above business premises has been a problem for many years. When the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act came in in to operation in 1963 it only covered the business premises which were usually on the ground floor and so the fire authority only had the power to regulate this area. When we came across this situation we normally wrote to the owner with a copy to the Public Health Inspector making a series of recommendations to improve the means of escape from the accomodation. This was also a problem in some licenced premises where the escape route from the accomodation was via the licenced part of the building.

Obviously, residential premises that are above cooking areas are more at risk than above other occupancies such as banks and when I was employed by a financial institution I put a policy in place that provided for a seperate entrance for the accomodation, 1 hours fire resitance between the occupancies and a fire alarm with automatic detection.

This is not a new problem but one which has been with us for many years.