FireNet Community
December 14, 2017, 04:24:38 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: It is with deep regret that the Webmaster, Colin Simpson, and I have to inform the forum that Alan Kurnatowski (Kurnal) passed away on the 17th April.
Colin T & Colin S have provided an obituary in the fire safety forum
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: December 13, 2017, 09:28:16 PM 
Started by William 29 - Last post by colin todd
Not man them Almost, People them, people them,.

 2 
 on: December 13, 2017, 09:13:25 PM 
Started by William 29 - Last post by nearlythere
It would help if we clarified the definition of "Stay Put". It is understood that this means "no matter what - stay in your flat" and I have had someone say that to me.
It is more a delayed evacuation than staying put. The delay being that, if necessary, the FB will take you out despite guidance which states that any evacuation strategy must not be dependant on the arrival of the FB.
We all know how this "control of building" cock up happened in the first place, which was avoidable, but we must move on and fix. (Funny how BC are being very, very fussy at the minute).
I have been involved in two blocks of flats up to 8 years old each with ground floor commercial premises and access to each level of flats is by way of external balcony approach. The balconies are constructed of wood and glazed elements underneath at all levels is of safety glass. The balconies are the means of normal access/egress and the alternative from each is via a window - provided the FB arrives with aerial appliances - if there is anyone to man them.

 3 
 on: December 13, 2017, 08:50:26 PM 
Started by AnthonyB - Last post by AnthonyB
None of the features they request were ever installed, the building reflects the approved layout and installed features when built over 40 years ago.

Thanks for the opinions so far.

 4 
 on: December 13, 2017, 05:56:42 PM 
Started by William 29 - Last post by Dinnertime Dave

I received an email today from a county council commissioning service telling me that following receipt of advice from their county fire service, that we should expect that "stay-put fire safety legislation" - Their words not mine is expected to change.

Part of me wants to reply to the email asking for more information and what the implications are. 

 5 
 on: December 13, 2017, 05:39:32 PM 
Started by AnthonyB - Last post by Dinnertime Dave
I have a similar argument with a brigade.

They then tried Article 4 - General fire precautions "measures to mitigate the effects of fire".



Really?  Are they now claiming to be Relevant Persons then?

Jim, I totally agree with you posts on this subject, and I have had to argue that maintaining does not mean provide.

The quoted case above was around the provision of a hydrant.  I agreed that there should have been one installed 7 years ago when it was built, but there wasn't.

As a company we did install one at a cost of ?12k. We saw it as a sensible thing to do on a ?25m asset, but we weren't going to told we must do it because they said so.

 6 
 on: December 13, 2017, 04:16:32 PM 
Started by William 29 - Last post by nearlythere
I suppose the main issue would be the effect that an outbreak of fire in an occupied property could have on others in the vicinity e.g. next door or even in the wider community.

 7 
 on: December 13, 2017, 03:14:17 PM 
Started by Fishy - Last post by Fishy
For those who haven't seen it...

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/666861/Information_note_for_landlords_and_building_owners_of_tall_residential_buildings_with_ACM_cladding.pdf

 8 
 on: December 13, 2017, 03:06:45 PM 
Started by William 29 - Last post by Fishy
The FSO makes no distinction between occupied and unoccupied (empty) buildings, and even if it's a building site it is also covered under that Order. The 'relevant persons' might include (for example) maintainers, or estate agents and the people they're showing around, and may also include persons in neighbouring properties, one of the definitions of "relevant person" being: "...any person in the immediate vicinity of the premises who is at risk from a fire on the premises...".  Whether it needs to be written or not depends upon  how many persons the RP employs.

So... I guess the answer to the OP is "Yes"?

 9 
 on: December 13, 2017, 11:28:17 AM 
Started by AnthonyB - Last post by Jim Scott

Are they exceeding the actions they can bring under the FSO by requiring such significant alterations - they are only citing reg 38 for the works and are not requiring lobbies or pressurisation under any other Article for the protection of Relevant Persons?

Opinions please!



Yes, fundamentally.

Article 38 is very clear.  The facilities must have been required under an enactment in the first place and the emphasis is on 'maintain'.  No power in Article 38 to 'provide'.

I have the argument on a frequent basis.

 10 
 on: December 13, 2017, 11:18:20 AM 
Started by AnthonyB - Last post by Jim Scott
I have a similar argument with a brigade.

They then tried Article 4 - General fire precautions "measures to mitigate the effects of fire".



Really?  Are they now claiming to be Relevant Persons then?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!