Fire! Don't Panic
Published: 16 March, 2006
In theory, in less than a month, shopping centre managers will have another piece of legislation to deal with when the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRO) comes into effect. None of its provisions should be a surprise because the RRO has been looming for some time. Its net effect is to mop up the somewhat piecemeal legislative framework that currently exists in relation to fire safety and to enact one all-encompassing statute.
Probably not before time if fire and engineering consultancy Lawrence Webster Forrest is to be believed: "With around 120 pieces of fire-safety related legislation, it is inevitable that overlapping and confusing inconsistencies arise in existing fire safety provision. These can bewilder the professional, never mind the lay person," the firm says.
The most important change is the onus of responsibility. Previously, the fire service had to carry out fire risk assessments and centre managers then had to act upon its findings. The RRO turns this on its head. Alan Norman, consultant to Indepth Hygiene, says: "The government is trying to get people to take responsibility for their actions and this is part of it."
In practice, this will mean that for every building there will be a "responsible person", as the Act has it, on whom the onus to carry out a fire risk assessment will fall. And in most shopping centres the person will probably be the centre manager.
But all is not as clear-cut as it would seem. If, for instance, you are a caterer operating within a mall and above your cooking hob there is an extractor taking fumes out of the building, you too might be a "responsible" person. The logic is that if a fire broke out on your premises and an insufficiently robust fire strategy is in place that leads to a more general problem, liability might be yours.
The counter argument to this is that the vent from your premises will frequently lead directly into the main smoke extraction system for a centre and liability might ultimately be the centre management's problem rather than yours as a caterer.
Under the existing fire safety provisions there is pretty extensive wriggle room. This has meant that in cases of this kind the blame for inadequate fire precautions has been batted backwards and forwards between the various parties and it has proved extremely tough to apportion responsibility. Not so under the terms of the forthcoming legislation. The notion of "joint responsibility" means that more than one party can be found guilty of negligence.
But if responsibility for fire risk assessment is now at the door of centre management, how is it enforced?
Although the fire services have been taken out of the early part of the equation, they will still turn up, from time to time, to inspect the fire plans that have been put in place.
There is also the matter of what Henri Fraser, sales and marketing director at Airvent Systems, refers to as the "cause and effect" test. Fraser says: "Fire safety depends on active and passive systems." "Passive" in this instance refers to a system that alerts shoppers in a mall that a fire is happening -- a fire alarm by any other name. "Active" are those elements that act to control a fire such as sprinklers and smoke controls.
Fraser point out that it is far more difficult to assess the latter when looking at the potential fire risk in a shopping centre, but that it is critical: "In a large building you'll never starve a fire of oxygen. So smoke control is about directing the smoke."
For the purposes of fire risk assessment this means that the majority of shopping centres are zoned and a separate assessment has to be made for each of the zones. The "cause and effect" testing that Fraser cites means that a document is created that looks at what will happen in a wide range of possible contingencies and examines the provisions made for this. In effect, it's a kind of "what if" charter aimed at preventing fire and should it occur, making sure that every possible precaution has been taken.
He says that each of the zones in a shopping centre should be checked annually.
And according to Fraser, retailers in a mall occupying sites over 10,763 sq ft (1,000 sq m) must have their own fire risk assessments carried out. Which sounds as if they are not likely to be a problem for centre managers. But the doctrine of joint responsibility could easily be brought into play here and nothing is certain.
So when will the RRO really come into force? Originally owners of commercial premises were to have been under starter's orders at the beginning of April. However, even though the RRO has been approved in the House, there has been a failure to produce the relevant guidance documents and it seems likely that the launch date is still six or more months away.
Still time to get things sorted out therefore. As Tim Wilcox, fire systems inspector at Static Systems, puts it: "We're all fairly sure of what effect the RRO is going to have. If somebody is injured and if you could be deemed to be negligent, you're in a lot of trouble." Better get organised soon.
----
=== What should centre managers do? ===
Alison Mould, partner at Fladgate Fielder says: "Shopping centre managers need to liaise closely with their landlord clients and any tenants association and initially establish who has responsibility for what part of any shopping centre. In relation to any common parts, the shopping centre managers should be instructing fire risk experts and establishing with them how the premises are best assessed and what action needs to be taken thereafter. Shopping centre managers with their client landlord should also be considering writing to tenants and reminding them that in relation to their units, the obligation for the new rules will fall on them.
----
=== Contacts ===
Airvent System: [http://www.airvent.co.uk]
Static Systems: [http://www.staticsystems.co.uk]
Indepth Hygiene: [http://www.indepthhygiene.co.uk]
Lawrence Webster Forrest: [http://www.lwf.co.uk]
