Jump to content


Photo

Part B (Fire Safety) - Building Regs


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 yellowjacket

yellowjacket

    Senior Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Interests:Fire Engineering

Posted 05 November 2007 - 07:19 PM

Right, this is coming from another discussion in another section of the forum. What changes to part B (Fire Safety) of Building Regs would you like to see?

#2 afirespotter

afirespotter

    New member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:dublin south

Posted 08 November 2007 - 07:03 PM

Right, this is coming from another discussion in another section of the forum. What changes to part B (Fire Safety) of Building Regs would you like to see?


Few changes are required to the regulations. The principles of the regulations need to be properly understood by those charged with checking plans.

There needs to be less incestuous education in the application of building regulations and more practicality with proper reasoning.

There is not enough research into real fires and the effect on buildings.

I watched the 8 fire ravaged (concealed cavity fire) timber framed dwellings at Airside Swords being demolished and then rebuilt exactly as before. This is not right.

In any building the Horizontal and vertical Thermal and Structural boundaries need to work and the fire integrity of the divisions maintained at openings and penetrations. Simple.

Fires should not spread beyond the area of origin and should definitely not affect your neighbour.

Look at Castleforbes recently, why did the ground floor outbreak destroy the flat above as well ?

There needs to be education in simple building construction conveyed to the firefighters on the ground and to the non-existant building inspectors.

There are too many fire traps. Can the people get out is the simple question to be addressed.

Nothing else matters except the most important fact that too many forget, can the firefighters fight the fire from a position of safety, in safety and confine it simply to the area of origin.

I believe many of the recently built buildings do NOT provide and or enough protection and ease of access and egress to our firemen.

Someone recently said that there are 7 or 8 hundred fire hydrants missing in Bray. Where are they ?

I had a walk on the Bray seafront last week and saw 2 of them painted a luminous yellow, but, the lids have never been opened since the water main was laid tens of years ago ! I defy anyone to readily open any of them.

I was also at Lidl in Greystones and outside the adjacent Art shop the hydrant marker post is there OK but I had parked over the hydrant box. It is more than a metre out from the kerb in the middle of a parking space. Of course I moved my car but immediately another parked in my place, the occupants locked it and then hopped the fence to catch a bus towards Bray !

Who is responsible for such a deliberate and wrong hydrant location ? I was so shocked that I omitted to check the distance of the hydrant from the building. It probably was 6 or more metres from it but I cannot be sure.

I will go back there one of these days and check it. It is safe to assume that no-one will move the hydrant in the meantime.

#3 Chilled

Chilled

    Senior Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 105 posts

Posted 09 November 2007 - 10:04 AM

The situation with siting parking spaces over fire hydrants is something that seriously needs to be addressed. It is the simplest thing in the world to put double yellows over places on the road where hydrants are located

Also, a word of warning to anyone parking over a hydrant even legally. If we need acces to the hydrant we will smash your window and let off your handbrake to move the car. In an emergency damage to the car will be the last thing on anyones mind. Solution, don't park on a hydrant

#4 afirespotter

afirespotter

    New member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:dublin south

Posted 12 November 2007 - 02:54 PM

The situation with siting parking spaces over fire hydrants is something that seriously needs to be addressed. It is the simplest thing in the world to put double yellows over places on the road where hydrants are located

Also, a word of warning to anyone parking over a hydrant even legally. If we need acces to the hydrant we will smash your window and let off your handbrake to move the car. In an emergency damage to the car will be the last thing on anyones mind. Solution, don't park on a hydrant



The parking space should NOT be there in the first place ! The time lost in moving the car/van/truck could be critical in saving a life.

My point was that there is nobody accountable for the wrong location. The law should be enforced.

It looks like Wicklow CC have something more to answer for.

The fire fighters need all our support.

If the Sunday World article yesterday is true, I do not believe it is wrong, then we all have to rally around the familys of the recently departed volunteers.

How can anyone be so callous, they did not finish their shift ! ! !

They want the name of a solicitor before paying out ! ! ! Who will pay their FEES ??? Will it come out of the insurance ??

How dare WCC dictate to the familys in distress.

#5 yellowjacket

yellowjacket

    Senior Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Interests:Fire Engineering

Posted 12 November 2007 - 05:43 PM

To borrow your style:

WHY is this posted on an unrelated thread?????

It looks like Wicklow CC have something more to answer for.

The fire fighters need all our support.

If the Sunday World article yesterday is true, I do not believe it is wrong, then we all have to rally around the familys of the recently departed volunteers.

How can anyone be so callous, they did not finish their shift ! ! !

They want the name of a solicitor before paying out ! ! ! Who will pay their FEES ??? Will it come out of the insurance ??

How dare WCC dictate to the familys in distress.



#6 bat

bat

    Senior Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Location:Dublin, Ireland
  • Interests:Marine rescue, sailing, watersports

Posted 12 November 2007 - 07:16 PM

While there are a few items i would like to change ie. Fire Escape from loft convertions and any three story house. It is not as much the Regs i would change but the why they are enforced or lack of enforcement. Our already overworked fire prevention section do not have enough time to do the paperwork ie checking drawings never mind going out to see if they builders/developers are complying with their instructions. There is not enough inspection done DURING construction/renovation. To give you an example it is very difficult to tell a 1 hour Fire resistant wall from a 1/2 hour fire wall when they are built and decorated. The can look the same so all you have is the builders word that he/she spent the extra money!!!

#7 chris241

chris241
  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 18 January 2008 - 11:59 AM

I.m in college at the moment in my final year and i am doing a thesis on this very topic. I was just wondering what your thoughts were on means of escape for people with disabilities and have any of the lads ever come acrooss an incident were they had to rescue a person in a wheelchair that couldn't escape??? I was also wondering if anybody knows if fire safety notices are still issued under the fire services act 1981. Thanks.

#8 yellowjacket

yellowjacket

    Senior Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Interests:Fire Engineering

Posted 18 January 2008 - 12:16 PM

I.m in college at the moment in my final year and i am doing a thesis on this very topic. I was just wondering what your thoughts were on means of escape for people with disabilities and have any of the lads ever come acrooss an incident were they had to rescue a person in a wheelchair that couldn't escape??? I was also wondering if anybody knows if fire safety notices are still issued under the fire services act 1981. Thanks.



Fire Safety Notices are definitely still being issued.

#9 bat

bat

    Senior Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Location:Dublin, Ireland
  • Interests:Marine rescue, sailing, watersports

Posted 18 January 2008 - 07:43 PM

The reason the fire spead up to the flat above:

Going by the current regs and asuming that the house was newly built.

The fire protection between floors in normally 1 hour only.

This means that a fire directed at the other side of a partition wall or in this case floor, will not break through for one hour. That does not mean that the heat from said fire does not set something on fire which is on the floor!!

That is if the construction of the 1hour protection was done properly. There is currently no proper inspection process for confirming the builder has done it properly!!

AND THE MAIN POINT!! ALL PROTECTION ONLY WORKS IF YOU CLOSE THE DOOR!!!! New apartments for example all have closers on their internal doors not just the fire doors in the lobbys. Once the person moves in the door closers are removed or the door in wedged open!!

#10 chris241

chris241
  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 23 January 2008 - 10:18 AM

Hi all,
I dont want to be an annoyance but i was wondering if it would be possible to get a few opinions on a number of issues.
As I already said i'm doin a thesis on the effectiveness of our current fire safety legislation.

1/ Is there a problem with the enforcement of the regulations, or is it merely lack of funds, Is it possible that the level of construction in the contry is disproportinate to the fire prevention authorities?

2/ Is there any problems with access for the fire services in the event of fire and is there anything in particular that needs to be changed?

3/ Does the system need to be changed, i.e. should the law be changed so that contrators have to prove that they have provided a 1 hour fire resistent wall etc?

#11 yellowjacket

yellowjacket

    Senior Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Interests:Fire Engineering

Posted 23 January 2008 - 10:35 AM

The Building Control Act 1990 contains provision for Certificates of Compliance with the Building Regs, which would have to be completed by a competent professional and submitted to the building control authority post-construction, but this part of the legislation has never come into force for some reason.

The problem with expecting the building control authority to fully ensure compliance is it's impossible. Even if you could get to inspect every building (and there's nothing like enough manpower to achieve that), that isn't enough - you need to make loads of inspections as the building is going up to see everything. I think the compliance certification might be a way to help deal with this, with the B/C inspections there to keep the certifiers on their toes.

One of the probs with fire brigade access is that what's shown on a site plan at Fire Cert stage can be different to what's there when the landscapers are finished, so you have routes intended for fire appliance access, that are now unable to fit an appliance.

The othwer big problem with B5 is hydrants that actually deliver very little water.

#12 alpha

alpha

    Senior Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 466 posts
  • Location:no fixed abode
  • Interests:Antagonising silly people.

Posted 25 January 2008 - 02:56 PM

Well, why arent firefighters trained and utilised to carry out fire inspections as per the UK fire service ? Maybe the building control aspect may not be appropriate but I dont see why annual inspections of buildings cant be carried out by crews .
I seem to remember a whole series of Fire Prevention courses being provided for Junior Officers by the FSC, and being told on the course that there was no reason why JO's and firefighters couldnt carry these out.

#13 bat

bat

    Senior Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Location:Dublin, Ireland
  • Interests:Marine rescue, sailing, watersports

Posted 25 January 2008 - 05:40 PM

In dublin anyway, Only a "Responsilble Officer" or "Authorised Officer" may carry out inspections of any buildings for fire safety or otherwise. In Dublin only a person of District Officer Rank or above is classed as an "Authorised Officer" and under the Fire services act and the Building regs have very little power to force any changes. The Act gives them the power to enter any building to inspect but after that the power is limited.

#14 yellowjacket

yellowjacket

    Senior Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Interests:Fire Engineering

Posted 25 January 2008 - 06:41 PM

In dublin anyway, Only a "Responsilble Officer" or "Authorised Officer" may carry out inspections of any buildings for fire safety or otherwise. In Dublin only a person of District Officer Rank or above is classed as an "Authorised Officer" and under the Fire services act and the Building regs have very little power to force any changes. The Act gives them the power to enter any building to inspect but after that the power is limited.


The "authorised person" can be any person authorised by the fire authority- station officers have been authorised persons in the past in some areas, for example.

As for powers under the Fire Services Act, I wouldn't consider them unduly limited.

If a building or part of a building is "potentially dangerous", a Fire Safety Notice can be served on it by the fire authority requiring remedial works within a given timeframe or indeed closing it until those works are done - but it takes 14 days from serving the notice for t to take effect). If the building "poses a serious and iimmediate risk" a closure notice can be served by an authorised person with immediate effect.

These are both serious actions, and tend to get the attention of building owners gfairly quickly.

#15 alpha

alpha

    Senior Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 466 posts
  • Location:no fixed abode
  • Interests:Antagonising silly people.

Posted 25 January 2008 - 07:17 PM

I was thinking more in the line of the UK 1 (1) d inspections where, basic fire safety features such as working fire alarm,in date fire extinguishers and proper exits etc are checked.
It aids pre fire planning , gives the FB a visible presence in a fire prevention role and nothing stopping crew being mobilised from the inspection.
As far as I am aware also there is nothing stopping anyone being an authorised officer as this is done at local authority level.
And again as I say, this is certainly not the impression that was given on the FSC courses where we were told to go back to our authority and tell them this .
Would I be naughty in suggesting theres a bit of "they're my marbles and you cant play with them " syndrom when it comes to the idea of firefighters getting involved in fire prevention. ;)

#16 yellowjacket

yellowjacket

    Senior Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Interests:Fire Engineering

Posted 25 January 2008 - 07:37 PM

Definitely the authorised officer can be any person given the piece of paper by the relevant county manager / director of services.

A lot of reports to prevention come in from the crews as it stands, either from incidents, familiarisatiobn visits or stuff seen off duty, the issue here is whether firefighters would be specifially tasked to go out on inspections. There is an element of turf minding I suppose, inspections being part of the fire prevention role. I dunno how happy f/f's would be to see fire prevention staff dropping mice and pens to leap into the big red trucks and doubling up as f/f's either though :)

It's all one big happy family isn't it? B)

#17 alpha

alpha

    Senior Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 466 posts
  • Location:no fixed abode
  • Interests:Antagonising silly people.

Posted 25 January 2008 - 11:28 PM

Definitely the authorised officer can be any person given the piece of paper by the relevant county manager / director of services.

A lot of reports to prevention come in from the crews as it stands, either from incidents, familiarisatiobn visits or stuff seen off duty, the issue here is whether firefighters would be specifially tasked to go out on inspections. There is an element of turf minding I suppose, inspections being part of the fire prevention role. I dunno how happy f/f's would be to see fire prevention staff dropping mice and pens to leap into the big red trucks and doubling up as f/f's either though :)

It's all one big happy family isn't it? B)

True, but dont Kildare have, or at least have had, AFO's responding as retained FF's also ?
My main point , though is, that there is an issue in every local authority , that insufficient inspections take place, due in main to insufficient FP staff. There is a readily available resource in every town that has a fire service, where the local fire crew could be made use of in a fire prevention roll other than just a response sevice.
We've all heard the bumpf from the change programme telling us that community fire safety is the key - but teaching 7 year olds about scratch and sniff or whatever the hell the name of the cards in the school packs are called, is will take a long time to change the mind set on fire safety . And at least if the kids parents saw us treating fire safety issues as importantly as turning up at incidents when the fire safety hasnt worked, we might see some benefits.
And maybe were more like the Adams family than the Brady bunch.

#18 yellowjacket

yellowjacket

    Senior Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 178 posts
  • Interests:Fire Engineering

Posted 25 January 2008 - 11:39 PM

As I understand it, there were in the past, but this is no longer the case. It's a classic example of the crossover argument allright, some people mightn't have been impressed with the idea as it was seen as "stealing marbles", but it meant there were officers with lots of firefighting experience.

If the budget would support it, I do think it'd be a good plan to train members of crews with an interest in the subject in fire prevention, and get them out and about on inspections to supplement (but not replace) the fire prevention personnel. In an ideal world, every single non-domestic premises should be able to expect a fire safety inspection every few years, with high-risk premises getting them multiple times per year. Not sure where the money would come from though.

#19 alpha

alpha

    Senior Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 466 posts
  • Location:no fixed abode
  • Interests:Antagonising silly people.

Posted 26 January 2008 - 12:31 AM

"it meant there were officers with lots of firefighting experience."

Jaysus, yellowjacket your cracking me up!!! :lol:

#20 afirespotter

afirespotter

    New member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:dublin south

Posted 21 October 2008 - 05:57 PM

Jasus, yellowjacket your cracking us all up with your official speak !!!


TV License Inspectors visit 18,000 (yes eighteen thousand) homes and businesses every month, so why not train them in building inspection. They know all the excuses.

Make them authorised council officers and they can then enter premises legally and find the TV and at the same time look at the fire doors and check the means of escape.

He might need to get out himself (in a hurry) and therefore he would check his means and route of escape and that way he would be doing everyone else a favour !!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users