FOCUS
High level The FPA hosted a second tall buildings seminar, after the success of the first in 2017. William Roszczyk writes on proceedings at the Cavendish Conference Centre
F
PA MANAGING director Jonathan O’Neill spoke on legislation and guidance after a potted history of fi re regulations, remarking
on the interim report from the review of building regulations and the inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fi re, and specifi cally looking at the local acts and their removal. Reporting on local acts in 2012, the Building
Research Establishment concluded that repealing them would have ‘no significant impact’ on life safety and had ‘little benefi t’ for tall buildings, and that compartmentation was ‘suffi cient’ to avoid fi re spread. It recommended repeals ‘with no adverse effects’. Discussing the joint project between the
FPA and Association of British Insurers (ABI), Mr O’Neill listed themes it recommended that the review cover, outlining how close these were to essential principles insurers have used for 25 years. He signalled irritation at ignorance relating to suitability of modern methods of construction, which he called ‘common sense and not unreasonable’. The ‘large quantities of combustible
materials’ in and on buildings would, he hoped, be addressed in the fi nal report.
42 APRIL 2018
www.frmjournal.com Risk assessments
FPA principal consultant Howard Passey then addressed fi re risk assessments (FRAs) – specifi cally legislation, the responsible person, competency and fi re engineering. National legislation requires that you ‘don’t kill anyone’, with laws ‘very similar generally’, but on the responsible person it is often not simple to defi ne identities. This can be the employer if the place is under their control, and the body corporate was ‘eventually where blame might be set’, while an FRA should be ‘suitable and suffi cient’. The problem with legislation is that it doesn’t state FRAs must be undertaken by a competent person, and duties are imposed on anyone in control, with these people able to ‘be held responsible in any area in fi re safety management’. Mr Passey had seen alarm engineers face prosecution. On competency, the legislation cites this as being suffi cient training and experience or ‘knowledge and other qualities’, with this last element confusingly vague. Competency should be required for evacuation planning, compartmentation, passive fi re protection (PFP), construction, fi re doors and more, as they are
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
