This question has come about as a result of a proposed new restaurant for one of our clients - the building (previously offices) is being adapted to a 2 floor restaurant.
Only one door in and out - no alternative means of escape.
So, planning was applied by our client on the basis it would have maximum of 75 seated customers at any one time. Now, planning (building control) accepted this and alteration works / layout changes have gone ahead.
FRA has picked up, only 1x means of escape, therefore, max allowed is 60. This seems to tie up with building regs.
Who should we listen to?! Why would building control allow >60? There is no major fire safety systems included - bog standard fire alarm (L2) with basement smoke extraction consisting of the little glass panels for the fire service to smash and vent the basement level if needed...
This is in a very posh part of London if that makes any difference (albeit I assume it shouldn't as life safety is life safety)...but anyone know of any particular quirky agreements in place would be appreciated!
Planning Permission or Fire Safety?
Moderator: Moderators
- Paul1979
- Member
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 4:19 pm
- 7
- Industry Sector: Property Management including H&S
- Occupation: Property Manager including reviewing of H&S assessments and implementing remedial actions...or trying to justify why they are over the top and an alternative solution can be found!!
- Location: London
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
Planning Permission or Fire Safety?
"If life were predictable it would cease to be life and be without flavor."
- Messy
- Grand Shidoshi
- Posts: 3588
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:59 am
- 17
- Occupation: 46 years experience with a metropolitan Fire Brigade and then Fire Safety Manager for a global brand.
Now sort of retired from the fire safety game, but doing the odd job here and there to keep my grey matter working and as I hate sudoku and havent got the back for an allotment - Location: Sunny London where the streets are paved with gold ;)
- Has thanked: 369 times
- Been thanked: 663 times
Re: Planning Permission or Fire Safety?
Its very likely that BC have made an error
I would ask them directly about the occupany gap as from your description I would expect the FRA to be the correct figure
But definitely ask the BC how they came to that figure
In any case, I am not sure how the operate with numbers above that established by the FRA
I would ask them directly about the occupany gap as from your description I would expect the FRA to be the correct figure
But definitely ask the BC how they came to that figure
In any case, I am not sure how the operate with numbers above that established by the FRA
- Paul1979
- Member
- Posts: 291
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 4:19 pm
- 7
- Industry Sector: Property Management including H&S
- Occupation: Property Manager including reviewing of H&S assessments and implementing remedial actions...or trying to justify why they are over the top and an alternative solution can be found!!
- Location: London
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
Re: Planning Permission or Fire Safety?
Hi Messy, just to let you know the outcome on this one (it was interesting for me as I had never come across this before)....Messy wrote: ↑Thu Apr 29, 2021 10:52 pm Its very likely that BC have made an error
I would ask them directly about the occupany gap as from your description I would expect the FRA to be the correct figure
But definitely ask the BC how they came to that figure
In any case, I am not sure how the operate with numbers above that established by the FRA
We approached BC for clarification - the reason they had passed planning application with >60 occupancy level is that their historic records for the building (dating back to some 1873!!) showed a 'joint easement' arrangement with a neighbour at the back of the building! This is a legacy doorway which used to travel through the back of the building we are managing and lead into a similar building attached at the back... so according to their records, the building we are concerned about had 2x means of escape...
Now, that legacy doorway was bricked up back in the 1970's by the landlord...and the building to the rear has since changed completely into residential flats.
The really interesting thing for me is that trawling through the records, BC signed off the previous change of occupancy (back in the 1980's) still showing 2x means of escape and therefore the previous tenant used to have well over 60 people working in there!
As I say, interesting for me as I have never come across this before - but also, BC say they don't always visit the site when signing off planning...?!
"If life were predictable it would cease to be life and be without flavor."
- Messy
- Grand Shidoshi
- Posts: 3588
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:59 am
- 17
- Occupation: 46 years experience with a metropolitan Fire Brigade and then Fire Safety Manager for a global brand.
Now sort of retired from the fire safety game, but doing the odd job here and there to keep my grey matter working and as I hate sudoku and havent got the back for an allotment - Location: Sunny London where the streets are paved with gold ;)
- Has thanked: 369 times
- Been thanked: 663 times
Re: Planning Permission or Fire Safety?
Wow, I was not expecting that!! Thanks for sharing
These local arrangements are pretty useless as they sort of die over time. I used to work as a Fire Enforcement Officer in part central London where there's lots of very tall single staircase hotels and 'B&Bs'
Many had easements to allow a secondary escape into next door via the roof. Some had fire certificates showing the same.
But many of these arrangements fell apart as the neighbour would move out and forget to tell the new occupier . Then it goes on for years until its just normal
Well done for chasing the BC people. Not everyone would have
These local arrangements are pretty useless as they sort of die over time. I used to work as a Fire Enforcement Officer in part central London where there's lots of very tall single staircase hotels and 'B&Bs'
Many had easements to allow a secondary escape into next door via the roof. Some had fire certificates showing the same.
But many of these arrangements fell apart as the neighbour would move out and forget to tell the new occupier . Then it goes on for years until its just normal
Well done for chasing the BC people. Not everyone would have