Fire safety
Fire safety regulations were previously included in the Health and Safety theme. Some commentators have said that they more logically fit with building regulations. We are therefore including Fire Safety regulations in the Construction and Housing theme which goes live in November. The Fire Safety page will open again as part of the Housing and Construction theme, and all comments received to date will be considered as part of this theme. You can view all comments posted so far below.
There are recent new rules on having sprinkler systems in homes that are more than 45m from where a fire engine can get to. Some of this huge expense is absurd and is seems to be based upon a fire appliance not being able to reverse more than 20 metres. HGV’s with trailors have no problem accessing the new homes so this requirement should be removed as unnecessary.
We’ve been told that the all the ready made glazed fire doors with over 20% glass that you can buy on the internet do not meet the requirements of our building control officer. He’s asked for:
“”the relevant integrity and insulation criterion for the proposed doors that you
wish to use, in order to meet the requirements of Table A1 of the Approved
Document Part B (Fire Safety) Volume 2.
The minimum provision for both Integrity and Insulation when tested to the
relevant part of BS 476 should be 30 minutes.”
This is for double doors into our lounge from the corridor (he asked us to build), the doors are right next to the front door creating a corridor which has no natural light. For safety reasons, we’d like these 2 of the doors to be glazed but he’s rejected the off the shelf ones. We are now looking at ££££ to get bespoke ones made. This is for a small B&B [text deleted]. The double doors are right by the front door, surely for the insulation to be needed there would have to be a fire source next to the door to affect the specific latent heat capacity? If there is a fire in a small house the smoke detectors would have been going for a whole 30 minutes, at which point the fire would have to make its way to the door and then heat it up. Surely in a small house everyone would be out of it by this time. Plus we have another escape route from the corridor out the back through the kitchen. Please someone explain to me is this requirement normal and proportionate?
Insulation of glass is measured after flashover (Flashover occurs when the majority of surfaces in a space are heated ) –
The safe side of the glass (not nearest the heat) is measured by attaching thermocouples – each of which is monitored throughout the test to determine a temperature rise. Insulation failures occur when either
the temperature measured by an individual thermocouple on the sample increases by more than 180°C, or a temperature not in excess of 140°C measured by an average group of thermocouples.
• Radiation – radiation from the sample is measured for non-insulating samples and is measured using a heat flux radiometer, which is positioned central to the sample and 1m away.
So basically to get the insulation or specific latent heat capacity of the glass it is tested with a full heat source 1m away from the centre of the glass.
This does not take into account the build up of heat and smoke detectors going off. NB. In’ Do you have paying guests’ the government asks for:
“Doors need to be strong enough to hold back smoke and fire long enough to give you time to escape. For small premises, a reasonably solid timber door that fits well into its frame is likely to be good enough. Any internal hollow ‘egg-box’-type door would not offer adequate protection and should be replaced.”
This is a document produced by the government on the impact of over regulating small business:
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/better-regulation/docs/l/10-1251-lightening-the-load-regulatory-impact-smallest-businesses
“Fire safety
4.30
Micro businesses reported significant problems in complying with fire regulations. In the past a fire inspector would visit the premises and issue a fire safety certificate. Now, since the Fire Safety Order of 2005, businesses need to conduct a fire risk assessment themselves and this, they feel, requires expertise and knowledge – such as how a fire spreads – which is beyond the ability of many micro businesses. For this reason many micro businesses that are aware of the new regulations have had to pay for one or more external experts to come in.
“There are so many special rules that I have to get a consultant in but because the requirements are so strict, I ultimately had to pay an advisor around £2000 to do it for me.”
4.31
Because fire safety is a complex area, business lack of knowledge also exposes them to less reputable ‘consultants’ who”
sorry cut the last bit off:
“we were told, try to get them to buy too much equipment that they do not need.”
its very confusing for companies especially small and medium size compaines to keep up with legislation why not put these regs into one.
PRACTICAL FIRE SAFETY GUIDANCE
FOR SMALL BED AND BREAKFAST AND SELF-CATERING PREMISES – The Scottish Government, Edinburgh, 2010
http://www.firelawscotland.org/files/PFSG-SBB.pdf
Have single register of risk assessors
Clear the overlap between housing and fire servicee. Give all the fire safety to the fire service.
Just spoken to a local fire officer and he says that they have to take the lead from building control. So if building control officer defines a property, they have to follow.
Interestingly though, if we run out of money and can’t meet the criteria for a boarding house but can meet the criteria for “Do you have paying guests?’ we could sell the property and the new owners could open up as a B&B straight away!!! This really is an un-unified policy in disarray.
For our annual street festival (21st year) this year we are required to produce a separate Fire risk assessment in addition to our Event Risk assessment that includes fire.Why this year when regs are dated 2005????
Much of what is being discused is regarding building regulations when the issue for discussion here is seperate fire safety legislation.
I agree with the comments by Morag and Robert regarding the development of this legislation. But don’t forget that it is not just based on good practice. The RRO fire safety order replaced over 100 other pieces of fire related legislation. Much of this legislation developed over a large number of years as a result of catastrophic fires where large numbers of people died as a result of unsafe conditions because no legislation was in place.
The introduction of the RRO WAS the ‘red tape’ cutting exercise by replacing the huge amount of other legislation with just one. If the Fire Safety Order is scrapped, who will ensure the majority of premises are safe for workers, employees and members of the public? I have been into enough busines premises to know that if organisations and individuals think they can get away with cutting corners or not taking sensible precauions they will do so because generally that means saving a few pounds. When the country is in the financial state it is currently, how long do you think it will take for standards to dramatically drop if organisations realise that there is no requirement for them to bother?
Scrapping the RRO also affects busines growth. There are many companies such as fire alarm, lighting, electricians, fire engineers, Fire Consultants, amongst many who provide the products and services closely linked to the requirements of the RRO. What will be the effect on them? Is this stimulating economic growth?
Do not forget that 80% of companies that sufer a major fire DO NOT recover. With no controls in place are the incidents of fire going to increase, or decrease? How does that fit in with stimulating economic growth?
Any politicians bothering to read the comments made need to consider the wider implications of scrapping legislation that is in place to ensure persons and business safety, and not just scrapping it because it looks like they are trying to help and because that legislation was brought in by a previous government and on principal they don’t like it.
Fire safety is like health and safety, get it right first time and it should run along in the background with little maintenance. Unfortunately every government taking office always see’s and targets these areas as easy hits. Carry on cutting safety measures and it won’t be long before our standards are put back a hundred years.
Personally I do not believe the legislation can be improved in a major way, there are always small areas where any legislation can be ‘nipped and tucked’ . I do agree with the other comments regarding issues around interpretation by some authorities and that the prescriptive approach is wrong, as I have stated in previous comments it is a risk based approach and should be dealt with as such. I would like to think that the way in which I and my fellow fire protection officers in our service operate is in this manor. However all our fire protection officers come from backgrounds other than active fire fighting and I believe that is a benefit when interpreting the legislation. I would also point out that the recent unrealistic financial cuts demanded by our government has resulted and will continue to result in fire service cut backs and them being unable to actively enforce this safety critical legislation. To the layman that means that nothing is done until a fire occurs and kills people, then and only then will enforcement action occur. It becomes a reactive process, not an active preventative process. Waiting for businesses to be ruined and ftalities to happen rather than ensuring it does not happen in the first place.
You are not cutting red tape, you are cutting lives short.
The RRO has had less than 5 years in place and I do not believe this is enough time to prove it needs cutting. Review it, consult with the persons directly involved with it, gather statistics on fires and their increase or decrease, make minor alterations where necessary.
Scrap it at your peril.
Unfortunately building regulations and the appropriate fire safety ARE connected. If a building control officer considers a building to be a boarding house the fire regs jump to over £30,000 of work for a small scale B&B. It does NOT matter how a fire safety officer views the property and if they consider ‘Do you have Paying guests’ criteria to be met, the building control officer will present the building as a boarding house and will NOT sign any thing off until ‘boarding house’ guidelines for at least fire regs are met. This will destroy small scale B&Bs in the UK.
I am a Health and Safety and Fire Safety Consultant and have to agree with what Morag MacLean said on May 13, i.e. This is the kind of legislation that has developed out of good practice, good evidence of risks and a desire to prevent loss of life. To change it without a thorough overhaul of all aspects would be criminal.
I would however add that most of the comments so far are about problems with enforcement and interpretation. My experiance is that enforcement is variable across Fire Authorities and Local Authorities and that the Fire and Rescue Service tends to continue their historical prescriptive approach by appying the letter of the law and even the Bristish Standards regardless of the risk assessment process. In fact I would go as far as to say that, in general, the FRS officers have not really understood that the idea of risk assessment is that control measures should be proportionate to the risk. That said it is difficult to see what is disproportionate about requiring all doors giving access to the circulation space, i.e. the escape corridor, being 30-minute fire doors with door closers. This is very basic passive protection whereas requiring a full L2 alarm system would, in some cases, be an unreasonable and impractical requirement.
Out of interest, do you think that the regulations for a family home are sufficient?
If I have a home with say 12 of us staying in the house at Christmas ( 10 who have never stayed over before), what in a domestic house would you be happy with? Are closing corridor fire doors now a must in all family homes, should there be a small blue sign with keep fire door closed on each fire door and a running man to show the way to the front door?
If I don’t have the funds to upgrade my property to let 3 rooms as a B&B is my home with potentially more people visiting safe?
As a B&B operating in grade II listed building we had all sorts of issues with all sorts of legislation that comes through. We have been inspected twice by the fire service, the first time by a real Draconian whom I felt was over officious because I was on my own that day; the 2nd time (5 weeks ago) my husband did the inspection tour and the inspection was more or less faultless- the only issue he had was when I pointed out to him that as I did not employ anybody I did not have to put my risk assessment in writing and it states this in their regs so really and truly he could not insist (the first inspector pulled an assessment I did do to pieces – all the words and actions were right it was just that he didn’t like the way it was written out and now that I am more savy when any inspector for anything comes around I have the rule book in front of me to challenge anything they insist on me doing which is not a requirement in the rule book. I have no problem with sensible regulations and inspectors but when they get over zealous and officious they should back off – many times I feel it’s an authoritative gender reaction, so perhaps these inspectors should be trained to take into account the size of the business they are dealing with and learn how to deal with business owners correctly and not take a supercilious high handed manner. Also, to write a 5 page letter documenting their findings and threatening one with fines/closure etc is totally over the top for such a small business to put up with. I agree with a previous writer that those whom want to abide by the regs will and no matter how many are put in place there will always be cowboy operators who will never comply and put their guests/business at risk. These are the operators inspectors should hunt out and deal harshly with, not just the compliant ones already on their books – easy targets for them.
For anyone thinking of opening a small scale B&B, (no planning needed) you are now reclassified as a boarding house by building control. This is the official government written response:
“The terms “boarding house” and “bed and
breakfast accommodation” are not defined in the Building Act 1984 nor the Building
Regulations 2010. Where a term is not defined in statute it is normal legal practice
to refer to the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary.
I have spoken at some length to Pembrokeshire Council about your case. It is in its
view, based on relevant factors, that a material change of used as in regulation
5(c) of the Building Regulations 2010 has taken place. This Department has no powers
to contest this view. The Council went on to explain that it was then requiring only
what it considered reasonable under regulation 6 of the Building Regulations. ”
This basically means that ALL B&B’s will have to have emergency lighting and corridor routes to a front or back door. They MAY be asked to put an L2 (Hotel) alarm system in or the one already recommended for small B&Bs an Part 6 LD2. This is ontop of fire doors to lettable rooms, now all rooms off the new corridor will need fire doors. Basically the government will need to offer out a minimum of £10,000 per B&B or the business will more than likely close. NB. there are 200 B&Bs in Pembrokeshire alone that will be affected by this.
I think you really should contact your local Fire Service Fire Protection Deartment and ask their opinion as they would be the persons who would inspect your B&B for fire safety precautions and enforce any requirements under the Fire Safety Order and look at areas such as the adequacy of fire doors emergency lighting and fire alarm system.
Your statement of EVERY B&B will require the precautions you mention is absolutey wrong. The precautions you put in place should be based on your fire risk assessment . I suggest you read a document entitled ‘Do you have paying guests’ enter this into google and you will easily find this. This will give practical advice, and yes if you run a B&B you may well have to put some precautions in place, but this depends on the building, if you provide sleeping for 5,6,7 + you are more like a small hotel than a B&B and will likely have to put a certain level of protection in place. Not one B&B I have inspected in the past 5 years has been the same. Some have required more detailed provision than others, the provisions you put into place should be proportionate to the risk.
I suggest you talk to your local building control and the fire service and all talk about what are the reasonable precautions to be put in place.
Without knowing your situation I cannot comment on it, but I reitterate your inaccurate comment about ALL B&B’s requiring the level of provision you mention.
Remember you have a duty of care to anyone within your premises, a B&B IS a business.
Remember, Fire safety law talks about ‘where necessary’ and ‘where appropriate’
Carry out your fire risk assessment and use this as the basis of the appropriate precautions to put into place.
Get the relevant departments to talk to each other, and you.
Alas this is what Pembrokeshire County Council building control say:
http://www.tourismhelp.co.uk/content.asp?nav=3&parent_directory_id=1&id=694&Language=
I’ve been in contact with the local fire officer who managed to convince Building control that we could put a part 6 LD2 system in (up until that point they were insisting on an L2. They say that anything that has paying guests has is a boarding house. I’ve told them about do you have paying guests but they say it is not relevant. This week I now have to give them an engineer’s report on floors (deemed suitable for dwelling), they’ve made me change one already. Put in signage as applicable to a hotel (not a B&B), put chain closing bolts on all fire doors, not just the ones to lettable rooms, even though this is impractical and potential dangerous in a family home. I’ve put in emergency lighting in the hallway. As far as building control are concerned the building that is a family home, has no exterior extensions, is having en suites put in, has less than 50% bedroom lets, is seen by planning as a dwelling is in their view a dwelling. As far as they are concerned that is the regulations that have to be followed and ‘Do you have Paying guests’ is not applicable but it is for them to decide.
Apologise it’s hard to re read what you’ve typed. basically Building control view the property as a ‘boarding house.’ NB. Not all building control officers do, I’ve spoken to some who do and some who don’t. In addition to the last post, i now have extra info from the government building control adviser on this:
Should every B&B be classified as a boarding house?
“Not necessarily, it will depend on the individual circumstances which the
building control body will take into account in coming to a decision.”
Could clarify what your advice would be to distinguish between the
classification of a ‘boarding house’ and a ‘dwelling.’
“Will the building be lived in by the family as well as the B&B clients
*
What separate facilities will be provided to the B&B clients beyond
bedrooms and sanitary accommodation
*
Will there be facilities like a check-in desk
*
How many bedrooms will be available to B&B clients and what proportion is
this of the dwelling
*
What is the purpose of the building – family accommodation with
occasional paying guests or more a hotel with the family living on site
*
What view do other regulatory authorities take of the building
I also said that no single factor would be definitive and it is for the
building control body to weigh up the factors and come to a decision.”
If anyone is in the same position as me I hope this helps. Alas even having sent this to the building control officer they still see the property as a boarding house, because we have ‘paying guests.’
Thought you might be interested in this, this is a report that was written last week by Pembrokeshire Council Building Control. It would be great to have some feedback on this. BREAKFAST/BOARDING HOUSE ACCOMMODATION
1. The purpose of the briefing note is to consider the level of application of the Building Regulations and Planning legislation to conversions of buildings to bed and breakfast/boarding house accommodation and the effect enforcement of the legislation might have on the tourism industry in Pembrokeshire.
BUILDING REGULATIONS REQUIREMENTS
2. Work is being proposed to a three storey premises in ***********, to change the use of the building from a dwelling to bed and breakfast/boarding house accommodation. The ground floor has, in addition to reception rooms, a gallery which the owner has stated will not be accessed by the general public. Alterations are being proposed to create an additional, fourth bedroom on the first floor, all of which will be provided with new en-suite facilities. A further additional bedroom is also being created at second floor level, which will result in there being two bedrooms on this floor and six bedrooms within the premises.
3. Legislation requires that the proposal constitutes a change of use under Regulations 5 and 6 of the Building Regulations 2010, which as a consequence requires the building to comply with requirements relating to structural stability, means of escape in the event of fire, early detection and warning of a fire, sound insulation, renovation of thermal elements, access for disabled, etc.
4. Building Control does not have discretion in the application of the regulation, although the applicant can request for an Appeal or Determination from WAG in relation to the local authority’s interpretation of the regulations.
5. A Building Regulations application was originally submitted for the premises in Llandudoch/St Dogmaels for alterations and improvements to a dwelling. Due to the indicated use on the drawing of a part of the ground floor as a Gallery, consultation comments of Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service were sought. They responded that the drawings suggested that the proposed drawings may indicate bed and breakfast use. This was confirmed by the architect during a subsequent site meeting.
6. The use of part of the house is being changed from domestic to boarding house/bed and breakfast use and as a consequence many requirements of the Building Regulations will apply. The applicant and agent/architect argue that the proposal is not a change of use, that other authorities would not apply the legislation in a similar manner and that the provision of a minimal number of rooms within an existing dwelling house does not constitute a change of use.
7. Response to telephone enquiries to the Building Control sections of Ceredigion, Carmarthenshire, Devon Building Control Partnership and East Devon Councils have indicated that these authorities would apply the requirements of the Building Regulations to the proposal to change the use of accommodation to bed and breakfast use as has been applied by Pembrokeshire County Council Building Control. None of these authorities have indicated that they have a policy within Building Control for accepting the conversion of a minimal number of rooms to bed and breakfast use in existing dwelling houses as being exempt from the requirements.
8. The Department of Communities and Local Government have been contacted by the applicant in relation to the above in order to obtain their opinion on the application of the Building Regulations to the change of use in this instance. BC has also contacted DCLG but no response has yet been received.
9. The Building Control section does not receive many applications for conversion of premises into bed and breakfast/boarding house accommodation, unless they are larger hotel type accommodation. If discovered as an unauthorised conversion, then Building Control would consider enforcement action under the Building Act 1984, if the work was found within two years of it being carried out and referred it to court within 6 months of discovering the contravention. If the work is not discovered within 2 years then no action is possible under the Building Regulations. Action would still be possible by Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
10. Advice from the legal section of PCC is that there is no case law on the subject. They confirm however that the application of the legislation, as outlined above, in relation to interpretation of change of use and the resultant need to comply with technical requirements of the Building Regulations is correct and that there may be repercussions if the requirements of the legislation are not enforced and there is an accident or fatality as a result.
11. The major risk to the public of not applying the legislation totally will be a fatality or injury due to fire at the accommodation where there isn’t early warning, a protected means of escape or emergency lighting, etc. provided.
12. There may be works required to be carried out, such as structural strengthening of the building, providing sound insulation to walls and floors, etc, all of which contribute to the safe use of the accommodation.
MID AND WEST WALES FIRE SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
13. Bed and breakfast accommodation is also required to comply with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, which came into force on 1 October 2006 requiring that a Fire Safety Risk Assessment is carried out by the property owner which will determine the level of fire and life safety provision to be included in the design, such as fire detection and alarm system, a protected route of escape which will include fire doors to each of the rooms facing the stairway, emergency lighting, etc. This legislation is enforced by the Fire Service.
14. Due to the manpower available, the Fire Service are not proactive in enforcing this legislation, but will respond following receipt of consultation with bodies such as local authority building control sections or following a complaint or enquiry.
15. The Building Control section have been informed, during a telephone conversation with a representative from Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service on 12 May 2011, that they consider the proposal in this instance to be a change of use to a guest house/bed and breakfast accommodation and that Approved Document B, in relation to Fire Safety, of the Building Regulations is applicable. He also stated that the requirements of Approved Document B should take precedence over any guidance documents that the Fire Service can enforce.
16. He confirmed that a protected route of escape would be required to be provided from second floor level to a final exit on the ground floor and he agreed with the need to provide the new wall on the ground floor to complete the protected route. He also agrees with the provision of fire doors to all rooms accessed from the stairway, landings and hallway, in order to create a fire resisting protected shaft to enable people to escape in the event of a fire.
17. He also considers that an adequate automatic fire detection and alarm system should be provided, although he considers that an LD2 – Part 6 system would be acceptable instead of a full L2 system.
PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
18. Bed and Breakfast accommodation can fall within either the C1 Hotel use class or the C3 Dwelling use class depending on the level and intensity of the use. Whether or not a proposal involves a material change of use in planning terms is a matter of fact and degree.
19. There have been a number of appeal cases which have considered the threshold at which bed and breakfast use moves from being incidental to use as a dwelling to being a mixed use of a guest house and a dwelling or to use as a guest house.
20. Pembrokeshire Coast National Park’s guidance is that 50% of bedrooms can be let for bed and breakfast use, up to a maximum of 3 bedrooms, without there being a requirement for planning permission. Ceredigion County Council does not have a formal guidance note but informally operate a 50% of bedrooms rule of thumb. Carmarthenshire County Council do not have guidance note but generally require the number of B&B rooms to be less than the number of private bedrooms.
21. The Planning Division do not have an office practice note in relation to this issue.
22. The background to this briefing note is that the developer’s intention is to let 3 of the 6 bedrooms as B&B accommodation. A ground floor room in the property had planning permission in 1991 for a change of use to a gallery and shop but the developer intends the gallery space to be used for purposes associated with the B&B use (breakfast dining space) and incidental to use as a dwelling. There are no external alterations to the building which would need planning permission.
23. The principal method of assessing when a material change of use has occurred relates to the number of bedrooms which are used for B &B purposes and their proportion in relation to the number of bedrooms in the property. The approach is relatively simple and provides the potential for clear guidance to the general public and a level of consistency in terms of the application of the guidance.
24. If prepared a guidance note should make reference to a percentage of bedrooms which can be used for letting and set a maximum number of rooms which can be used. The percentage approach would deal with most circumstances and where a percentage could lead to a large number of rooms the maximum number would apply.
25. Given that average occupancy rates for B&B accommodation in Pembrokeshire and throughout Wales only reach a maximum of 65%, the application of a proportion of 50% of bedrooms in a dwelling for B&B purposes should result in the B&B activity being secondary to the primary use as a dwelling. Setting a maximum number of bedrooms for B&B purposes at 3 rooms would also limit the potential for adverse impacts on the character of a property and its locality due to the 65% average occupancy rate. This guidance would be consistent with the approach followed by PCNPA. Any use for B&B purposes in excess of 50% or 3 rooms will require planning permission.
26. The guidance note should require officers to advise that the view being provided is in relation the need for planning permission only and that enquirers should ensure that they obtain any other necessary consents (i.e. Building Regulations approval).
TOURISM SECTION COMMENTS
27. The Tourism section has indicated that the current bedstock database identifies 201 small serviced accommodation establishments including B&B’s and Farmhouse B&B’s. There are an additional 148 larger establishments including Hotels, Guesthouses and Inns.
28. Revenue generated by these establishments isn’t known but they form an important part of the County’s tourism offer. The County Council does not have information on how many of these establishments comply with fire safety legislation, this is a matter which is enforced by the Fire Service . However, there is a well established network of support and training available to tourism businesses through the Destination Pembrokeshire Partnership, which includes the County Council, Pembrokeshire Coast National Park and Pembrokeshire Tourism.
29. It is important that the County Council support and encourage the development of new tourism businesses, such as B&B’s. There is a fairly regular stream of new B&B’s being established each year. It is these new businesses that set the pace for quality improvements by providing modern facilities and contemporary styling. This has a ripple effect on competing businesses, prompting them in turn to upgrade and invest in their facilities, thereby keeping the sector competitive.
30. Providing advice and guidance to businesses on their statutory obligations as well as helping them develop customer focused and marketing skills is a key activity for all the destination partners. This is achieved through conferences, seminars, training courses and via a business advice web site. Advice on planning and building regulation requirements needs to be added to this web site and communicated to the sector with information on the availability of funding streams.
31. Financial assistance is available to small businesses under the Local Investment Fund (LIF) to access Convergence/European funding for eligible sectors. Tourism is an eligible sector, and assistance may be available to the applicant which will cover up to 40% of eligible costs. Whilst LIF funding cannot be used to fund statutory requirements, e.g. fire safety requirements, it can be used to fund, for example, assistance with upgrading accommodation, or installing en-suite facilities, and marketing. A Business Support Manager from the County Council has spoken to the applicant and has arranged a meeting on site to discuss eligibility and the application process. A key part of the tourism strategy is to improve the quality of the County’s tourism accommodation.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – FOOD HYGIENE REQUIREMENTS
32. The bed and breakfast accommodation will also be required to be registered as a food business operation under the Food Hygiene Regulations. The owners will be able to use their own kitchen, and there will be advisory visit from Environmental Health, with subsequent visits/advice subject to risk assessment.
APPLICANTS CASE
33. Included in the argument put forward by the applicant’s architect, is that the application of the legislation indicated above will prevent growth and possible continuation of rental accommodation associated with the tourism industry within Pembrokeshire.
34. He claims that the cost of complying with the requirements of the legislation above may prevent the project being pursued in this instance. In addition he wonders what effect enforcing this level of requirement will have on the tourism industry within Pembrokeshire.
CONCLUSIONS
35. Building Control is required to enforce the legislation, although if it is not possible to arrive at an agreed solution to demonstrate compliance, the applicant has a right to apply to WAG for an Appeal or Determination on the interpretation of the legislation.
36. The effect of correctly enforcing the Building Regulations may have an impact on start-ups on bed and breakfast accommodation and the tourism industry generally. Application of the legislation may reduce the accommodation available to visitors to the county but the average occupancy rates suggest that there is unused capacity and therefore the impact should be limited. Promoting a quality offer is a key aspect of the tourism strategy for Pembrokeshire.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that you:
1. Note that the Building Regulations indicated above are applicable to the proposal to change the use of a building to bed and breakfast/guest house accommodation.
2. Note that Planning Permission is generally not required for a change of use to bed and breakfast accommodation where the number of bedrooms used does not exceed 50% or three in number, and that an office practice note is prepared to advise staff.
3. Agree that a Departmental Guidance Note be prepared for publication which will provide guidance to potential bed and breakfast/boarding house providers and all involved in the process.
4. The Directorate will continue to work together to improve the quality of the bed and breakfast/guest house accommodation available within Pembrokeshire so as to enhance the visitor experience.
13.5.11
I have removed the consultants names.
For anyone also caught up in this situation, this is a link to an appeal that was successful for an applicant in Northern Ireland:
http://www.dfpni.gov.uk/ap12-09_appeal_against_the_issue_of_two_contravention_notices.pdf
This is he link from the Deputy Priministers office ‘Draft Housing Bill: ‘Consultation on legislation
Fact Sheet 3: Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs): Licensing Scope and Schemes’
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/rtf/138106.rtf
The important section for small Scale B&Bs in the Holiday industry is this bit as it states the difference between holiday occupation requirements:
“Where a building is partly occupied by persons as their main residence, but is also partly occupied otherwise as a residence the building will be regarded as an HMO if the residential use is the primary use of the building e.g. a Bed & Breakfast establishment providing accommodation for homeless people or asylum seekers, rather than holiday accommodation).”
LIGHTENING THE LOAD
The Regulatory Impact on UK’s Smallest Businesses
A REPORT TO GOVERNMENT BY THE BETTER REGULATION EXECUTIVE
NOVEMBER 2010 – great that this has been written and well worth a read, but no sign of how the failings in this are being sorted out.
http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/biscore/better-regulation/docs/l/10-1251-lightening-the-load-regulatory-impact-smallest-businesses
Every year in the NHS ,I have to attend compulsory training on fire safety, lifting, etc. Invariably, these courses are designed for people working in hospitals, rather than the community sector, and the overwhelming majority of their content specifics are irrelevant to me. A lot of time is being wasted on these courses. I agree completely that we should have our attention drawn to the hazards that can exist in our workplace, but we don’t need to know the hazards and procedures in hospitals when we don’t work there. Periodic inspections and a CPD requirement would be sufficient unless the job or environment is unusually hazardous.
Worried that there are signs certain organisations are attempting to suggest competent person in terms of current fire safety legislation may result in businesses having to employ outside consultants, adding to business cost. Seems these regulations have been interpretated by some that all businesses must now update there current fire safety standards to current modern day thinking. That to some businesses could finish them ! All for improvements for hazards encompassing high risk….a business was told recently to display a “fancy sign” above break glass points by a Fire Officer…£6 x 42 ?….
This is the kind of legislation that has developed out of good practice, good evidence of risks and a desire to prevent loss of life. To change it without a thorough overhaul of all aspects would be criminal. Leave it alone.
I run a group of 8 self catering cottages in a listed 18th century building converted between 1996 and 2001conforming to the fire regs at the time. Following inspection by our local fire authority we have had to add door closing mechanisms between all kitchens and other living areas. Before we did this doors were generally kept shut to avoid draughts, and keep the rooms warm by all our holiday makers now whenever we go in we find these awkward doors propped open with chairs , bags of shopping, cases of beer etc. The fire safety has thus been reduced rather than enhanced. Now as well as fire being able to spread easily there are obstructions to trip over! This is particularly disturbs me in our properties where we went to great trouble to use easy handles for disabled people to open the doors now their doors are propped open, their rooms are colder and access is impeded.
In a hotel doors can be shut by staff and obstructions removed – in a self catering property the residents will adapt the rooms to suit their needs and we will not know that they are putting themselves at risk. therefore whatever we do to improve their safety must be well considered in the light of the type of use of the accommodation.
The new Fire regulations 2006 crushed my 4* Licensed Guest house Business. We were quite happy operating as a 3 bedroom luxury guest house in Mid Wales havimg already spent quite a bit on the fire requirements for that sort of establishment. Then the new fire regs came in and our local Fire Officer gave us an ultimatum – install a fire control panel with linked smoke detectors because all accommodation providers regardless of whether they are a private house with one guest room or a 50 room hotel all needed the same sort of fire safety requirements. This panel enabled the fire officers to find out which room the fire was in. I knew I could tell them that because it is only a 4 bedroomed house! I was given a year to sort it out, so got several quotes all for about £7000 whether labour intensive and carpet and floor removing wired system or highly technological radio controlled. That was 30% of our annual turnover before expenses plus we didn’t have the money anyway! By the time the Fire officer came the next year we had finished trading. We were running a guest house because there was very little decent guest accommodation and it was tremendous fun that didn’t need to make loads of money, just enough to keep the 4* standards and maintain the property to a good level. The rewards were the people we met, including David Cameron in 2007. We also provided business accommodation to lots of the local businesses. It’s a shame but the red tape certainly did stick it to us. This government is supposed to be helping small businesses but instead it is just putting us ou of business altogether. When we finished trading we had just had our most successful year ever, but just did not have the money to wreck our home with all this nonsense. I do feel bitter about it and think it should be changed and thought out properly. Who on earth thought that a three bedroom guest house should be classed in the same band as a 25 room hotel, and who on earth agreed with them. It is bureaucracy gone crazy, and should never have been allowed!
I would refer you to my comments on the fourth thread above this one.
No one said a 3 room guest house should be treated the same as a 25 bed hotel. All the guidance documents provided at the time of the introduction of the fire safety legislation, and subsequent guidance, make this point.
Unfortuanately people do not seem to realise they can challenge the local authority when bad decisions are made.
The problem unfortunately can sometimes be down to interpretation.
And unfortunately technology also rapidly moves one, what was quoted as £7k then now may be less than half that now.
But again I stress the point that what is put into place should be appropriate to the risk, proportionate and ‘where necessary’.
Julian the problem IS the application of the legislation. Kae’s B&B classified as a dwelling by the council (I’ve spoken to her since reading about her case on the phone) has had to close down. If the fire officer had told her about ‘do you have paying guests’ they could have put in the appropriate alarm system (NB. it was only 2 years a go she had a quote for £7000), or if he saw it as a boarding house she could have checked with planning, continued with 3 rooms if they agreed to it as a dwelling or just run 2 of the rooms (she has a total of 4). It is terrible and NOT in the spirit of the legislation to ask for the amount of precautions she had. She HAS fire doors, she HAS electric emergency lighting, she HAS linked smoked detectors in her hallway yet STILL she was shut down. Is there no common sense?