Government Response to Fire Consultation

[hammer1]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... tation.pdf


Above link is the Government response to the fire consultation from last October focusing on secondary legislation that will follow the Fire Safety Bill implementation.

I have summarised the main areas below where either legislation change has been agreed or where further consultation is required (PEEPS for general needs being one).

I have highlighted in bold an area that will affect the risk assessors out there (it reads to me, this will be for any type of premises and not just for 'higher risk' buildings?)

• We are therefore seeking to amend Article 50 of the FSO to include provision that where proceedings are brought against RPs for breach of Articles 8-22 or regulations made under Article 24, failure to follow such guidance may be relied upon in support of such breach. Also, conversely, that following the guidance may be relied on as supporting compliance. It is intended that this amendment to the FSO, coupled with the planned overhaul of existing guidance, will support RPs in complying with their duties under the FSO and support enforcement action against non-compliance.


• We intend to amend the FSO to include a requirement for all RPs for all regulated premises to record their name, extent of their responsibility, and contact information (which must include a UK based contact address).

• We also intend to amend Article 22 of the FSO to place a new requirement on all RPs for all regulated premises to take reasonable steps to identify themselves to all other RPs (and where applicable Accountable Persons under the BSB) where they share or have duties in respect of the same premises. It will be expected that the reasonable steps must be done in an auditable way to evidence compliance with the new requirement and should include the provisions of identifying information, to assist enforcing authorities to identify non-compliance of RPs with Article 22 of the FSO.

• We intend to amend the FSO to require that any person engaged by the RP to undertake all or any part of the fire risk assessment must be competent. For this purpose, we intend to align the definition of competence with that provided under Article 18 which states that a person is to be regarded as competent where they have sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities to enable them properly to assist in undertaking the preventive and protective measures. Alignment with this definition of competence will encompass ongoing sector-led work relating to competence of risk assessors and other specialists.

• We also intend to amend the FSO to require all RPs to record their fire risk assessments and prescribed information as required under Article 9 of the FSO. We also intend to amend Article 11 of the FSO to require all RPs for all regulated premises to record their fire safety arrangements. This will work towards ensuring that a consistent approach is taken to fire safety across all premises regulated by the FSO, improve the quality of fire risk assessments and support enforcement action, enabling the sharing of fire risk assessments as well as provision of fire safety information to residents in regulated premises

• We intend to amend the FSO to place a requirement on all RPs to record the name and organisation of those they have engaged to undertake any or all of the fire risk assessment. This amendment seeks to facilitate the identification of those engaged by the RP to carry out their duties under Article 9 of the FSO, enhancing accountability and enforcement activity. It also seeks to assist enforcing authorities in ensuring that RPs engaging persons to assist with fire risk assessments are competent.

• We intend to amend the FSO to require all departing RPs for all premises, or parts of premises, regulated by the FSO, to take reasonable steps to share all relevant fire safety information with incoming RPs. If the RP does not have this information, this amendment will impose a requirement that they obtain this information, unless it is not practicable for them to do so. This intends to ensure the preservation of fire safety information central to the safety of regulated premises over a building’s lifetime.

• We therefore intend to amend the FSO to increase the level of fines allocated to offences in relation to the impersonation of an inspector, failing to comply with any requirements imposed by an inspector and failure to comply with requirements relating to the installation of luminous tube signs. from level 3 to level 5 unlimited. This would complement the current provision in the BSB, which proposes to set a maximum fine (level 5) for impersonating an officer of the Building Safety Regulator, and similar offences under section 33(1)(n) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and section 90 of the Police Act 1996.

• The Government agrees that the floor plans are likely to be useful and relevant to the local FRS in assisting it to plan and deliver an effective operational response to a fire incident in a high-rise residential building. The plans should be simple to assist quick and critical decisions which may need to be taken by operational firefighters during an incident. Although RPs may already have plans for their buildings, the consultation proposed a new standardised approach to ensure consistency across the public and private housing sectors

• While further work is being undertaken to develop our policy approach to PIBs in existing buildings and to define the information that will be required to be stored in them, we will introduce a new requirement that they must be provided in all new buildings above 11 metres in height. Such requirement will be delivered through amendments to the building regulations fire safety guidance (Approved Document B).

• The Government agreed that it is important to ensure that FRSs can amend their operational response to consider any impairment to the lift capability of a building that they might otherwise rely on during an emergency response. The RP should already be undertaking routine checks and maintenance recommended by the lift manufacturer. While monthly tests of the lifts designed to be used by firefighters in an emergency and the mechanism through which firefighters can take control of the lifts can be done as part of this routine maintenance or alongside it, practical consideration has been given to reporting these results to FRSs

• The Government agreed that it is critical for RPs to have in place an evacuation plan to ensure that building occupants can safely exit the building in case of an emergency, and that FRSs are aware of the evacuation plan and have an appropriate operational response prepared should this be required. It may also be beneficial to share the evacuation plan with both the local FRS and residents and a copy of the plan placed in a PIB, as recommended in the GTIP1 Report.

• The Inquiry recommended that the Government develop national guidelines for carrying out partial or total evacuations of high-rise residential buildings. In December 2019, a joint Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government technical steering group was set up to support a research project to review means of escape provisions in blocks of flats including the use of a ‘stay put’ strategy and evacuation. The steering group identified four strands to this work: an evidence review to assess academic evidence on methods of evacuation; operational research to test evacuation strategies; building design research to evaluate fire safety provisions in buildings; and human behaviour and public confidence, to better understand public perception and understanding of evacuation strategies. This research will consider a range of issues including the risks associated with the evacuation of large numbers of people in order to produce national guidelines for the carrying out of full or partial evacuations of high-rise residential buildings

• We proposed to require RPs to provide details of any residents who self-identify to them as requiring assistance to evacuate to their local FRS and to place this information in a PIB. Residents would need to be clearly told how they can declare their need for assistance. In buildings with a Waking Watch (with un-remediated cladding or under interim measures and in which ‘stay put’ is temporarily suspended due to heightened risk), the RPs will be required to prepare a personal emergency evacuation plan for each resident who self-identifies as requiring assistance with evacuation. They will also need to keep personal emergency evacuation plans up to date and, with the explicit consent of the relevant residents, share them with the local FRS to assist with their planning and response to any incident. Implementing personal emergency evacuation plans in general use blocks of flats is a complex issue. That is why we have decided to seek further views on this matter before committing to a legislative approach. We will include more information on this on GOV.UK as soon as possible

• The Government is of the view that residents of any multi-occupied residential building should be provided with information and instructions, including those for evacuation, in a form that they can understand and that takes into account the nature of the building and the knowledge of their occupants. While some RPs make provision of fire safety information proactively, there is no explicit statutory requirement for information to be provided to residents. In line with the GTIP1 recommendations, the consultation included proposals to enhance the provision of information to residents of multi-occupied residential buildings for which the non-domestic parts are subject to the FSO.

• Mandating Plans Certificates will require changes to the Building Act. Given the strong support for this proposal, the Government is considering including provision in the BSB.

• There was strong support across all of the proposals for strengthening Regulation 38. Respondents were asked which types of work it should be extended to cover and used the free text answer to identify: where changes had been made to fire safety measures or the fire safety strategy were affected; or to cover all areas of works and refurbishment. While respondents overwhelmingly supported a reform in this area to improve the process and the robustness of information provided to the RP. Given the strength of support for making changes, we are taking forward work in this area. However, the mixed views presented when asked about the three options suggest further work is required with the sector to fully understand the pros and cons of each option before bringing forward changes to Regulation 38 in due course.


• The owner and manager of every residential building containing separate dwellings (whether or not they are high-rise buildings) be required by law to carry out checks at not less than three-monthly intervals to ensure that all fire doors are fitted with effective self-closing devices in working order. Many respondents used their free text answers to raise concerns that the proposals overcomplicated the recommendation made by the GTIP1 report. Many others had the view that these proposals were too frequent and therefore not practical to undertake. Furthermore, while proposal 27 sets out separate inspection frequencies for buildings 11-18m and 18m and above, some respondents highlighted in free text answers the benefit of inspecting both subsets in a unified manner to reduce any potential ambiguity over such duties. – Ongoing…..

[witsd]

So every single one of our flat doors to be checked every 3 months?

90 000 checks. Every three months. 100 per day. Half of which will be 'No access'. Okay then.

And I've read the bolded section three times, and I'm still not quite sure what they mean. Are they really just saying 'to be competent you need to have "sufficient training and experience or knowledge"? What is meant by "ongoing sector-led work"?

[bernicarey]

An interesting read, most of which is fairly obvious.
I've never understood FSO s9 (7)a to record "the significant findings of the assessment, including the measures which have been or will be taken by the responsible person pursuant to this Order"
If they only record Significant findings and there's nothing there, how do you know how well they looked.
I've seen some right old Codswallop written as 'Significant Findings' by supposedly qualified, 'Register listed' Assessors.

I have highlighted in bold an area that will affect the risk assessors out there (it reads to me, this will be for any type of premises and not just for 'higher risk' buildings?)

I think, and hope, that the intent is not to wrap everything up in one package and that these requirements will apply to anything that is residential in nature. It would be a 'sledgehammer to crack a walnut' if they required even the simplest assessment for a village Shop or small industrial unit to go through the same hoops as a Tower Block.
If you read all the Introduction to the Response document, it's clear their focus is on residential, especially high rise.
I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[hammer1]

So every single one of our flat doors to be checked every 3 months?

90 000 checks. Every three months. 100 per day. Half of which will be 'No access'. Okay then.

And I've read the bolded section three times, and I'm still not quite sure what they mean. Are they really just saying 'to be competent you need to have "sufficient training and experience or knowledge"? What is meant by "ongoing sector-led work"?

The ongoing sector work is what WG4 Group are doing.

https://www.firesectorfederation.co.uk/ ... ide_V2.pdf

And the ACOP

https://www.firesectorfederation.co.uk/ ... ov2020.pdf

Agree about the FED checks, hopefully some common sense will prevail??

[Paul1979]

Can I just ask you guys something please, specifically relating to this statement...

"The owner and manager of every residential building containing separate dwellings (whether or not they are high-rise buildings) be required by law to carry out checks at not less than three-monthly intervals to ensure that all fire doors are fitted with effective self-closing devices in working order.
All those who have responsibility in whatever capacity for the condition of the entrance doors to individual flats in high-rise residential buildings, whose external walls incorporate unsafe cladding, be required by law to ensure that such doors comply with current standards."

Where is mentions, "whose external walls incorporate unsafe cladding..." does this mean the proposed changes such as the three-monthly intervals will only apply to those buildings with combustible cladding on the external wall system??

Or is this superseded by the first sentence which seems to basically refer to every single block of flats in the country?

Thank you and sorry if this is a silly question - I am sure a lot of our clients who have management responsibility for blocks of flats will be nervously awaiting the answer!

[witsd]

I was reading those as separate:

Check all flat doors 3-monthly

and

Upgrade any flat doors to currant standards if you have dodgy cladding.