The Gilbert Rooms are situated to the rear of Maxwell Hall on the main campus. The ground floor is used as a joiners workshop by Estates. The first floor is used as lecture rooms.
Methodology.
The fire risk assessment was undertaken using the framework outlined in the British Standard PAS 79:2007. The process involved a visual inspection of all accessible areas on a floor by floor basis to determine:
1. Potential sources of ignition
2. Combustible materials
3. Means of detection
4. Means of escape
5. Emergency lighting
6. Means of fighting fire
7. Fire safety signage
8. Procedures and training
9. Structural features.
10. Hazardous areas.
11. Significant hazards requiring further control.
12. Risk Level.
Relevant information was then identified on building plans and these are included as an appendix. A summary assessment is also included as an appendix.
Findings.
1. Potential sources of ignition.
The potential sources of ignition identified in the building are:
· Arson, as the building is open access for students.
· Cooking appliances in Porters staff rooms.
· Smoking.
· Machinery in workshop and LEV hopper in basement room of Maxwell Hall
There were no significant sources of combustible materials close to the building to be ignited by an arsonist. Smoking is not permitted in the building and there appeared to be no evidence of people smoking close to the doors outside. Machinery is in good condition and serviced regularly.
2. Combustible materials.
These are primarily:
· Furniture.
· Paperwork during exam times.
· Timber in workshop.
Combustible materials were not close to any potential sources of ignition and were only in small quantities.
3. Means of detection.
The building has automatic detection in the form of smoke sensors and also has manually operated call points to raise the alarm. These points are situated near to the doors at either end of the first floor and in the workshop area on the ground floor. There was no detection in the room housing the hopper unit for the LEV system.
4. Means of escape.
The building is very simply laid out with both floors being separate having no interlinking internal stairs. Travel distances are also relatively low.
The workshop area on the ground floor is low occupancy with a maximum number expected to be using the area at any one time of ten people.
The first floor has three lecture rooms, the two smaller ones having seating for approximately thirty five students each and the larger one holding approximately eighty. Exits from these rooms are sufficient and meet the requirements in ‘Approved Document B’.
Disabled visitors/students can access the building via the ramp up to the front doors. The lecture theatres are all on one level and have no obvious hazards for disabled visitors. With the building being relatively small there should be no difficulties in evacuating disabled persons.
5. Emergency Lighting.
The building is fitted with escape lighting which is designed to enable safe exit in the event of a power failure. This appeared to be adequate from a visual inspection.
6. Means of fighting fire.
The building has fire extinguishers located in accordance with the Universities Fire strategy document. Extinguishers are serviced annually by the Estates appointed contractor.
7. Signage.
The building is fitted with a variety of fire safety signs. These include fire exit, fire-action, manual call point all of which are compliant with the Safety (Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996.
8. Fire Procedures.
There are no evacuation plans, designated building controllers or designated fire marshals for the building as there are no staff based permanently in the teaching areas or the workshop.
Fire action notices are present in the building by each manual call point and in each lecture room. These give guidance to people using the building as to assembly points and contact numbers in the event of a fire.
9. Structural features.
There were no obvious structural features that warranted concern within the building.
10. Hazardous areas.
There are no areas that are of significantly high risk in the building.
11. Significant hazards requiring further control.
General Items Identified. / Action required. / Actioned by.The room housing the LEV unit and hopper did not have heat detection. / Heat detection needs to be installed. / Estates.
12. Risk level.
The following assessment of risk is based on the building after completion of additional controls.
Likelihood X Severity = Risk Level
of Fire
ê ê ê
2 X 2 = 4
Control measures to manage the fire risk in Adelphi House are quantified as: Acceptable.
Risk Rating:
Increasing Consequence/ 5 / 10 / 15 / 20 / 25
4 / 8 / 12 / 16 / 20
3 / 6 / 9 / 12 / 15
2 / 4 / 6 / 8 / 10
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5
Increasing Likelihood
/ 17-25 Unacceptable – Stop activity and make immediate improvements/seek further advice
10-16 Tolerable – look to improve within specified timescale
5-9 Adequate – Look to improve at next review
1-4 Acceptable - No further action, but ensure controls are maintained
Guide to using the risk rating table:
Consequences1 Insignificant – no impact
2 Minor – minor interruption to activity/process
3 Moderate – some damage to property/business interruption
4 Major – significant internal damage to property
5 Catastrophic –major disaster e.g. loss of life/loss of a building/impact on surrounding areas
Likelihood
1 Very unlikely – 1 in a million chance of it happening
2 Unlikely – 1 in 100,000 chance of it happening
3 Fairly likely – 1 in 10,000 chance of it happening
4 Likely – 1 in 1,000 chance of it happening
5 Very likely – 1 in 100 chance of it happening
3