{"id":530,"date":"2023-12-20T18:14:20","date_gmt":"2023-12-20T18:14:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/?page_id=530"},"modified":"2023-12-20T18:14:20","modified_gmt":"2023-12-20T18:14:20","slug":"q4-how-do-we-ensure-that-the-building-safety-data-is-live-not-an-outdated-snapshot-in-time","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/q4-how-do-we-ensure-that-the-building-safety-data-is-live-not-an-outdated-snapshot-in-time\/","title":{"rendered":"Q4 – How do we ensure that the Building Safety data is live \u2013 not an outdated snapshot in time?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n\t

BIM4Housing Follow-Up to Levelling Up Committee Meetings - Q4- How do we ensure that the Building Safety data is live - not an outdated snapshot in time?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

GEORGE We\u2019ve got fire risk assessments, we\u2019ve got the External Wall Survey assessments and we\u2019ve got now the safety case reports. All of those are things that have got to be done that can then be checked to see if you\u2019ve done them or not. The challenge with that is that the day after they\u2019ve been done, they can no longer be valid because circumstances can have changed. This is a common problem that we come across with fire risk assessments because they will be referencing information about a particular condition or a particular asset or system. That may be corrected the following day, following week, because of actions and therefore the fire risk assessment arguably should be redone. But the fire management system is what the fire risk assessment actually comes from, and exactly the same with the building safety case.<\/p>\n

I think the requirement for the Regulator is that you\u2019ve got in place a safety management system that is then ongoing and then the safety case report is really there to illustrate that you\u2019ve got something that\u2019s compliant. But then if something changes, like an asset coming out of commission or a space becoming at risk, then that needs to be reported, that\u2019s broadly the concept. To do that there is a whole range of things that we need to know about the building, the systems that are protecting the people and the spaces and what components and elements go into that. That feeds into what we\u2019re trying to do within BIM4Housing.<\/p>\n

RICHARD before we get on to the individual questions, we\u2019ve got some comments that are quite interesting. Answer 13, Alan has suggested that we add along with define boundaries, timeframes and events that trigger mandatory updates for different assets or project development, i suggest we put responsibilities in there as well. I don\u2019t think anybody would disagree with that. Also, Paul White suggests answers 5, 11 and 15 are all around competence which is pretty much covered under no.8 which is maintain a live record of building safety data with auditable changes and retention of historic information.\u00a0 I think he\u2019s probably right, we could just make that answer a little bit longer and cover everything in the other three.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Yeah, definitely. The thing is what we\u2019ve got here is a brain dump of people who are experts in different areas and obviously we\u2019re going to get a degree of repetition that needs refining. It\u2019s always a good idea to try and come up with three or four things, at a push maybe five, rather than twenty.<\/p>\n

RICHARD A number of people have given us their top 3 priorities on this list of answers, so I\u2019m going to pick the most popular ones. Number 1, a robust change management process should be followed throughout the entire project. That\u2019s the most popular priority that we\u2019ve got.<\/p>\n

VICTORIA FINN I picked this one as well, it\u2019s quite important that from the start from the development, we capture everything. What\u2019s usually happened is if it\u2019s had to go back through planning then its been captured, and again it will happen the same with the gateways, I guess. When it has to go through gateway 1 they\u2019re going to capture anything from gateway 1 to gateway 2 that changes and that will have to go back through the gateways. But it\u2019s not always those major structural bits that we need to capture, it\u2019s a material change, especially if it\u2019s a product material that\u2019s gone from non-combustible to combustible. I think it\u2019s really important that we get something that\u2019s standardised to say what those items might be that we might need to pick up on the change management process to make sure that it goes through to the safety case, and therefore we can update the Regulator with it. I\u2019m thinking the gateways will capture the big things, but the other things that are quite important to maintain in compartmentation etc that goes to the safety case won\u2019t be picked up still through the gateways. So we need something that is going to make sure that any changes reflect both in the safety case and on as-built drawings as well, to update drawings to see what materials have changed as well. It\u2019s quite important that we\u2019re picking up those smaller items as well.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE I think we probably can standardise this<\/em>, some people who are as old as me who were brought up in engineering, you did change management all of the time. You get it signed off by somebody more senior, i think we\u2019ve drifted into a peer now rather than somebody more senior, but you just need that peer responsibility for somebody who actually knows what\u2019s going on because they know what all of the changes have been.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD I find that a number of consultants will refuse to provide as-built drawings. It's very common because they have not been directly involved in the work, they flat out refuse to produce as-built drawings.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE Surely that\u2019s a) contractual and b) a requirement of the Regulator, so I don\u2019t think they can refuse for much longer.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD It seems to be the prevailing position of architects. it\u2019s not a cost thing, obviously we need to pay them to do that and that\u2019s not really the issue, it\u2019s that they believe it contravenes their insurance requirements, which potentially I\u2019d take with a pinch of salt. But nevertheless they refuse. And this is a number of big name architects.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Should it be down to the architect to do it?<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD The architect\u2019s drawings define what\u2019s supposed to be done and then you have trade contractors who may make some minor amendments in accordance with their materials and what not. But the architect should then update their details in accordance with the trade contractors information. They\u2019re not really taking on any additional liability because the trade contractor has implemented in line with the architect\u2019s specification and then any changes that were necessary, the architect should incorporate those. Otherwise in 10 years-time someone could open that architect\u2019s drawing and think that\u2019s what was built, and it\u2019s not.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE The point, which I\u2019ve made in other meetings, is that the information presented at gateway 3 must match what\u2019s in gateway 2 (for HRBs) and if it doesn\u2019t then all of the change control has to be in place. So this should end up being a basis where the drawings are updated all of the time because that\u2019s what\u2019s required because if you get to gateway 3 and they don\u2019t match then you ain\u2019t opening you building.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD This is the thing, someone needs to tell the RIBA this and get their members to comply with the regulations.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE I think it comes down to who\u2019s actually responsible for these drawings. Is it one of the contractors, is it one of the consultants? The point is whatever you have at gateway 2, whatever those drawings are, that\u2019s what you're building and if you don\u2019t build that then you\u2019ve got to have proper change control. And it doesn\u2019t matter who it is, you\u2019re in that process now so it depends on who is responsible for keeping those up-to-date. And that\u2019s the whole key to this whole system, you build what you\u2019ve been told and if you don\u2019t build what you\u2019ve been told you\u2019ve got the change route.<\/p>\n

JONATHAN FURLONG On this particular question that we\u2019re looking at around keeping data alive, is this throughout the whole life cycle? Or are we more focused on the design and construction phase? Or are we talking about the asset owner phase?<\/p>\n

GEORGE The asset owner phase. But the point that ben\u2019s making quite correctly is that for that to be manageable you\u2019ve got to have the right quality of information at handover anyway.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD yeah, there is no point in having drawings in your golden thread that don\u2019t show what you\u2019ve built.<\/p>\n

JONATHAN FURLONG I completely agree, but in theory buildings shouldn\u2019t get signed off at gateway 3 unless that information is correct. A separate question, is all of the information that\u2019s signed off at gateway 3 the information that somebody needs to operate a building? For instance, some of the people were talking about here information being out of date, I think that\u2019s a different question because you can have enough design information to pass gateway 3 handover a building, but if you take a lift, back to George\u2019s point that if something changes at the start.<\/p>\n

So for instance if we programme the lift to instead of dropping to ground floor when the alarm goes off, it goes to the fifth floor, that\u2019s never going to be information that\u2019s particularly captured. So I think it\u2019s back to the original question. I think the starting point for this should be information that\u2019s given over at gateway 3 is correct, but it may not be all of what you need and then it\u2019s up to the owner to decide what v they do need.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD I\u2019d say that an alternate grounding level on a lift should absolutely be captured in your cause and effect matrix.<\/p>\n

JONATHAN FURLONG Absolutely, but that\u2019s what I mean, it\u2019s only right at handover so how or what it does at grounding should be captured in the fire strategy and in your cause and effect. Then the question is when that changes, how do you know it changes? So back to George\u2019s point that you keep your information correct and up-to-date.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Ben, one of the things I\u2019m questioning at the moment is whether the architect would be the right person to do that because a lot of things that you\u2019d need to record would be M&E. We\u2019ve gone through an exercise of looking at Regulation 38 in terms of the fire assets. If you look at this, obviously compartmentation and cavity barriers and fire doors, they\u2019d be under the remit of the architect, but the dampers and a lot of these items here would be from specialists. So I guess it depends on the scope of what you\u2019re asking the architect to do.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD I think what I mean, I\u2019m using the architects as an example because they\u2019re the main protagonist of this issue, but all consultants should update their information and all disciplines, respectively. The architects are the ones that are refusing to do so. ? 15 mins 31 secs consultants, not an issue. They will actively encourage and crosscheck and ensure that their specification is continuously updated, we have no issue with that. M&E consultants, again we don\u2019t tend to have an issue with that because the discipline has a lot more sub-disciplines within it. They\u2019re quite good at navigating that and ensuring that they provide an overarching specification which refers you to trade contractors and specialist information within it, such that it hangs together as a complete set of information.<\/p>\n

GEORGE But updating the location, for example, invariably what the designer would put in their design as to where the ductwork dampers go etc, and also fire stopping and things like that, that will invariably change because the trade contractor will have slightly different products or slightly different routes. I\u2019m not saying that\u2019s a good thing, but that\u2019s perhaps\u2026<\/p>\n

COLIN WHITE Start off with what Paul White mentioned at the beginning, surely it is a contractual issue. I thought it\u2019s incumbent upon the main contractors before they hand their buildings over to the owners that they have to provide all of this information. I\u2019m older than Paul, but back in the late 60s when I started I spent most of my early apprenticeship compiling as-fixed details, down to the last nut and bolt that went in on systems. To a certain degree we still do that with the products that I\u2019m involved with at the moment, they\u2019re part of a system and somebody else mentioned the systems, it is, it\u2019s not just about how the architect has drawn his building with his block-work or his dry lining walls. There are all of these systems in there that are important and I\u2019m not sure how you can control change management.<\/p>\n

Even this week I have a situation where we\u2019ve supplied 86 smoke vent control panels to a particular project in London that\u2019s just getting to commissioning stage. We produced all of the as-fixed panel drawings that show what\u2019s connected to what. I\u2019ve been asked by the commissioning engineer (nothing to do with us, a totally separate thing), the commissioning engineer has told me that some of our as-fixed drawings are wrong because the services contractor, the electrician M&E contractor, has decided it\u2019s easier to connect certain ventilators and windows being acted as fresh air windows, to different panels. I\u2019ve got a conundrum that I don\u2019t know what to do. Do I ring up my client and say somebody has told me something is going on on-site. How do you control that?<\/p>\n

GEORGE I absolutely agree and that\u2019s a really important point. I guess that\u2019s what I\u2019m saying as well, the workflow at the moment, you\u2019re able to control your supply chain and I imagine that you would build into your contract that somebody has to create an updated model. I have to say that we\u2019re very fortunate, as Active Plan we get involved in a lot of handover information and you\u2019re lucky if you\u2019ve got a set of drawings that are named as-built.<\/p>\n

BEN BLACKWOOD IN engineering it would be a completely alien concept, you would not tolerate it, but in construction it seems to be normal.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE The engineering point is you don\u2019t change a pattern for a valve unless it\u2019s been signed off in triplicate because if you do you\u2019ve got no control about what happens to it and you don\u2019t know what you did. But in terms of what we\u2019re looking at here, with the HRBs we\u2019ve got this gateway 3 which is the audit of, in theory, as it been built, but actually that audit goes one step further in the fact that somebody has actually got to go around and physically check it. And then potentially what we\u2019re talking about here is the handover information, all of these drawings are going to have to go over to the client, the owner, but then they need to audit it again for all of the reasons that we\u2019ve just discussed. They\u2019ve got to understand it and then they\u2019ve got to introduce that into a system where they are then able to change the drawings. So there\u2019s potentially a whole new industry turning up here which is somebody who can support a building owner to a) hold the drawings, hold the BIM information, and update it as necessary. Because the appointed person is not going to be capable, they\u2019ve probably never seen a CAD station of a BIM station or a model station that they could even interrogate or change. These are one of the things that we need to make very obvious to people is that they need drawings that they can manage change with.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Yes, and rather than just a series of PDFs that you can\u2019t edit.<\/p>\n

RENE ZAN ZWIJNDRECHT I agree with the conclusion that we just got to that what people don\u2019t understand is it\u2019s not just changing information, it\u2019s going to be drawings, potentially models that need to be changed. And the operations teams do not understand that, so you need to build a complete approach for that structure and strategy. And that architect might not be around anymore, or any of those consultants might not be around, so you might have to have a vehicle to pass on to someone else that they can then do an update. So I think platforms is a key player in this.<\/p>\n

The whole thing about live information, i don\u2019t think the Regulator is going to expect you every five-seconds, every change, to immediately show that. They\u2019ll come to you and say\u2026your status at the moment, but you should have something in place to say I\u2019m in the process of doing a review of my fire equipment or fire doors, but I\u2019m aware of it and it will be done at that point. That can only be done with operations software or a platform that becomes a funnel that keeps track of this, that links all of the information together.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Just to clarify, the regulations require that if something changes that impacts on safety, for example somebody reconfigures a lift or an AOV goes out, those are notifiable changes.<\/p>\n

RENE ZAN ZWIJNDRECHT That is during construction.<\/p>\n

GEORGE No, during operations.<\/p>\n

JONATHAN FURLONG There is no need, once the building is complete, to notify the Regulator of a change to building designs and operations unless the change is big enough that you\u2019re having to go back in and getting building control again.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Sorry to contradict you, but if a system or an asset that is part of the safety management system of that building fails then there is a duty on the responsible person to act on that and ensure that the building\u2026<\/p>\n

JONATHAN FURLONG But they don\u2019t need to inform the Regulator.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Not the Regulator perhaps, but if it\u2019s the fire safety side of things and an AOV goes out, my understanding is that they\u2019re supposed to let the local fire brigade know, if it\u2019s impacting on safety.<\/p>\n

JONATHAN FURLONG Yeah, potentially, it depends on the extent. Say that you have an AOV that breaks in the building, depending on what happens\u2026if inside your safety management plan for the building and inside your building safety case and all of the other information, you may have a backup plan for that. You ideally should have\u2026so the consideration might be that it needs to be repaired but in the system there\u2019s one AOV and the building is still in operation. It may be that if there is only one AOV in the building and if that breaks the backup might be that you have to have waking watch in the building or perhaps some other measure. In some of those instances you're right that to say to the fire brigade that yes I would notify the fire brigade that the building is now not operating how it should. It all comes back down to your plan and a big part of it is are you doing what you\u2019re saying you\u2019re doing in your building safety case, your building safety management plans.<\/p>\n

In the operation phase it\u2019s very much how you do that, but the big question is how do you, for instance, know when that happens. How does the right people know when an AOV fails so that the measures are put in place to take the appropriate action and inform the appropriate people. How do you keep your information up-to-date, so for instance if the AOV failed you may go from a stay-put policy to a simultaneous evacuation policy, and if that is the case obviously people need to be notified, primarily the people living in the building. How do you make sure that that happens in a live environment? From my point of view people need to look at doing it with the critical information, your major life safety systems, and the major bits of equipment inside it and not look at every single little piece of information.<\/p>\n

So if one door mag lock breaks, yes the door is part of the life safety system for smoke control, but it doesn\u2019t make any difference because if it fails it should be failing open and therefore you might have a security issue in the building, but you certainly don\u2019t have a safety issue in the building. So it\u2019s about people understanding what it is that really makes up their golden thread of the critical building safety information and how do you get that live, rather than trying to get everything live. There should be nothing that ever changes on a drawing in day-to-day operations that you should every have to have live. For instance, you're not on a live basis moving an AOV, that\u2019s a big change, that can go through a change management process. The live bit really comes into data points.<\/p>\n

VICTORIA FINN There was a couple of old issues there. When we\u2019re talking about notifying fire services, and it\u2019s right that it\u2019s when it\u2019s in occupation as well, we\u2019re talking about essential firefighting equipment. So if essential firefighting equipment goes down, it\u2019s going to be down more than 24 hours, that\u2019s when we\u2019ve got to notify the fire service. That was one, and again, when we say when we\u2019re going to pick these up and when we\u2019re going to know about that we\u2019re also obliged to make sure that we inspect those items. So all firefighting equipment has got to be inspected on a monthly basis now. So hopefully the provision that we already had in, people have either extended that or they\u2019ve got somebody else in place to do that - we\u2019ve extended our provision to make sure it covers that.<\/p>\n

So we\u2019re collecting that information quicker and that can change on a monthly basis, like you say you wouldn\u2019t change the drawings. We'd need a central area that people can go to make sure that that\u2019s updated, or a central person or however that\u2019s going to be done. I know that some people have gone to digital twinning where you\u2019ve got your digital representation of the building. It\u2019s a bit like reverse BIM, it\u2019s already built and then you\u2019ve deconstructed it and put it together as a design, and then each area that you click on in that building you can actually attach the information behind that, so that\u2019s going to be live information. And that can be auditable, so you\u2019re putting new information on top of the old, but you can still get to the old information.<\/p>\n

So there is that way of doing it, but again, then you\u2019ve got to make sure you\u2019ve got the right people doing that. And everybody that\u2019s doing those monthly inspections of your firefighting equipment is going to be the people that can feed into that so that it\u2019s always live. That\u2019s the only way at the minute I can think that\u2019s going to keep it as live as you\u2019re going to get it. You\u2019re never going to have it as live as we\u2019d like.<\/p>\n

RICHARD We\u2019re straying on to question 8 quite a bit which includes, as Paul pointed out, three other questions. Question 8: maintain a live record of building safety data with auditable changes and retention of historic information.<\/p>\n

COLIN WHITE Jonathan mentioned AOVs, surely it\u2019s about the servicing and maintenance of the systems, if you\u2019ve got the right people doing it they would be able to advise the building owners of anything that needs doing if there is something wrong. I\u2019m not exaggerating if I say at least five times a month I get phone calls from inexperienced (mostly fire alarm) contractors asking me about how to maintain and service a particular smoke control damper for a system that has been installed for a few years and they\u2019ve been going along once every 12 or 6 months, flick a switch and see that it operates and then closes it.<\/p>\n

When it doesn\u2019t operate they think oh Christ, what have we got to do about this. It\u2019s about the competency, experience, of the service and maintenance people because if an AOV system is commissioned at handover it\u2019s fairly passive, you\u2019ve got to check it and maintain it. But you\u2019ve got to know that the people who are checking and maintaining know what they\u2019re looking at, and more importantly know what to do if something is not right.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I agree with Jonny that we need to make sure that what we\u2019re not doing is overcooking it and not considering the specific information that is probably referenced in the fire risk assessment or the safety case. Therefore it needs to be proportionate from a point of view of what\u2019s critical. The ones that I just showed on that Regulation 38 examples are probably quite good ones to actually build out from.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE The key point, the as-built drawings, yes, you maintain, the issue is (and this is part of the BIM record that you\u2019re looking at) is if for some reason an AOV has to be changed because it\u2019s broken and you take it out and you put a new one in, then that\u2019s when you need to be keeping your change information. You may have not put it through building control because it\u2019s a simple change, but you need to keep who did it, are they competent and what they have they done, what have they replaced it with and where\u2019s all of the information that goes with it. And then that has to go into the file with the AOV control system etc because you\u2019ve done it.<\/p>\n

The issue that we\u2019ve got in the short term, and I think Colin was alluding to it, is Colin and I know how many awful systems there are out there that have not been maintained and I\u2019m assuming that in all of these safety cases somebody has got their most recent inspection which says it doesn\u2019t work. Now that\u2019s an assumption in the first case because they may not even know that they need to put it in the safety case. Then they\u2019ve got to write down what is their corrective action, so just like any quality system, I\u2019ve been advised this system is not working. Right, what\u2019s your corrective action? And hopefully what\u2019s you action to prevent recurrence because if you realise how expensive it\u2019s going to be to have to fix it the first time, don\u2019t let it happen again.<\/p>\n

This is what I mean by change management and record keeping is if you physically change something you\u2019ve got to have that route, but also in terms of this system of your live safety building data\u2026you\u2019ve got a fire alarm inspection, you\u2019ve got to keep all of the records, you\u2019re now starting to realise you\u2019re going to have fire door inspections, you\u2019ve got to keep all of the records. And in keeping all of these records you\u2019re building up a whole record of if you do nothing exactly how long you\u2019ve been doing nothing for. And then we add into that smoke control systems, ventilation systems with resisting ducts, and we add fire dampers.<\/p>\n

This is all of the information, they\u2019re going to have to have this report for all of these different things going into this management system, and that\u2019s the key point. Because having got all of that information you can\u2019t just go oh, I\u2019ve got the information, I\u2019ve done the inspection. No, because there\u2019s actions that need to be completed from that and you\u2019ve now kept potentially a record of all of the stuff that needs to be done that you haven\u2019t done.<\/p>\n

RICHARD This is the thing, it\u2019s all right having loads of information, we\u2019ve got loads of information in a lot of cases, it\u2019s just you\u2019ve got to find it and use it otherwise it\u2019s useless.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE But don\u2019t forget it is to protect yourself because if you do nothing in all of these instances you\u2019re leaving yourself open hugely to the safety of the building. Less is not more in this case because you're then a criticism for not keeping it and not doing it.<\/p>\n

JONATHAN FURLONG I just had a question on whether the word live is actually a good word to have here. Live to me would make me think that it\u2019s always right or it\u2019s up-to-date, I think that\u2019s not a possibility. If an AOV breaks most of them are done and they do not have sensors on them in the sense that they are not calling a call centre to say that they\u2019re broken. Because they\u2019re also not used by people, like a lift - when a lift breaks you know about it straight away because everyone phones up and complains and most lifts do have sensors calling their call centres. Lots of the other equipment doesn\u2019t, so if a pump fails on a sprinkler system how do you know about it? I think this language of you have to have everything 100% live is, a bit like Victoria was talking about going towards a digital twin world, it\u2019s not a possibility with existing buildings, most of these things it\u2019s not possible. So I\u2019m cautious of the word live. I don\u2019t know what the correct language should be there.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I agree with you, Jonny. The point is what we\u2019re trying to differentiate there, and these questions have come out of the community, so it may be that we replace live with up-to-date.<\/p>\n

JONATHAN FURLONG I don\u2019t know the correct phrasing, I suppose what we don\u2019t want to be doing is saying to people you have to have stuff live and people thinking they have to go and replace it. That\u2019s where we want to get to, but I don\u2019t think as an industry we are anywhere near close to that.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I agree. What we\u2019re trying to do here is also educate the clients that having a safety case report done, ticking the box like a fire risk assessment, and it only has to be done every five years perhaps, that they\u2019ve satisfied the requirements simply by having a report done. So if things that are in that report that are relevant as far as safety is concerned, if they change then that needs to be recorded, it needs to be updated.<\/p>\n

JONATHAN FURLONG Going back to what Paul was saying, with some of this stuff you need a lot of information. I agree there\u2019s a lot of information that makes up some of these systems, but I think from a day-to-day operational point of view, it needs to be simplified enough that people going out there and maintaining these and who are going to pick up faults can understand it. A good example is you may have a pressurised ventilation system in the building, how do you train people to be able to spot when that doesn\u2019t work. So for instance you could go and test that system at the flick of a switch and people can say the motor is running, it\u2019s operational. But if the door doesn\u2019t swing open when its meant to then the system isn\u2019t actually working. Instead of trying to train people\u2026I sometimes how you can train people on these systems can be very simplified.<\/p>\n

I think if you get the big ticket items right then your building is going to be a lot safer. Just from experience, things like that, you can teach anybody with a little bit of technical background how a lift should operate in a fire scenario, and it\u2019s fairly simple to test that stuff. It doesn\u2019t mean they are in anyway qualified to service a lift or to do any of the more complicated items on a lift. It should be very easy on a weekly basis for caretakers in the building to test is the lift is operational from a fire perspective point of view because it is turning on the fire alarm.<\/p>\n

So although there is a huge amount of information in here in making sure that a safety case is up-to-date, I think there is the two parts: really simple information which is in the up-to-date stuff, and then there is the more in-depth testing which is of the next stage and the third higher of stages if you were replacing a system. So obviously if you were replacing one AOV for another AOV, then you have to get really into the specification and the technical details. It\u2019s the levels of it and the biggest risk is at the bottom of the simple level: is your lift operating? Is your AOV operating? Is your smoke control operating?<\/p>\n

It\u2019s those ones in existing buildings where the failures happen, we see it time and time again where you go in and people are saying the system is operational and they are in no way operational. And a lot of that falls back into how we do fire risk assessments which in my opinion is completely inadequate? 45mins 39secs.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE Just coming back to this live thing, I take Johnny\u2019s point, but the point is that the reason we\u2019re using live is that if you actually read BS9999, if you look at what you\u2019re supposed to be doing every day, every week etc. You\u2019ve got to keep records of that because positive records are just as good as negative records. The point is you need something to say, when somebody goes in on week 7 and finds something wrong then they don\u2019t ignore it for 4 weeks and another 4 weeks because it\u2019s gone in the pile of reports. It\u2019s not as such, but it\u2019s not far out-of-date, if that makes sense.<\/p>\n

For instance, if you\u2019ve got an AOV system and tow of them have failed, you have no smoke control. These things are not as simple as we want them to be and the worst thing is if you start to look at things like fire dampers, they\u2019re completely hidden and it\u2019s a real pain in the bum job to go above a celling to make sure that a powered fire damper is open and closed every week. So you\u2019ve got to put into place systems that make this live, and the live part of it comes after the problem that\u2019s been found because if a problem has been found it\u2019s live because it\u2019s a problem for the people in the building at that point. They don\u2019t know, they\u2019re relying on you and one of the things I always say is\u2026<\/p>\n

JONATHAN FURLONG Things like those mechanical smoke dampers are never going to be checked every week, let\u2019s be realistic, there is not enough capacity in the industry, in housing associations etc., to do that. It\u2019s impossible that they\u2019re going to be checked on a weekly basis. Those types of levels of checks are never happening, even in the next 5 or 10 years, because even from a financial cost perspective it\u2019s not possible to do that.<\/p>\n

GEORGE How frequently would you say that they should be done?<\/p>\n

JONATHAN FURLONG They\u2019ll be done on the level that they\u2019re set out in things like SFG20, so probably 6-monthly or yearly, no more than that.<\/p>\n

VICTORIA FINN It has to be monthly under the legislation.<\/p>\n

JONATHAN FURLONG It depends on how you interpret it, it doesn\u2019t get into all what equipment is covered in that, so I don\u2019t think\u2026<\/p>\n

VICTORIA FINN It does give you an indication of what equipment is covered, for essential fire fighting equipment and it says monthly, that\u2019s what you have to do.<\/p>\n

JONATHAN FURLONG Essential fire fighting equipment is not mechanical smoke dampener, if fire fighting equipment is the stuff they use which is lifts, dry risers, wet risers. Even a fire alarm and smoke alarm system doesn\u2019t get covered.<\/p>\n

VICTORIA FINN Suppression systems do.<\/p>\n

JONATHAN FURLONG They would consider that potentially part of it, but what we\u2019re talking about here is its those items: dry risers, wet risers, lifts.<\/p>\n

VICTORIA FINN You have to check the dry risers as well.<\/p>\n

JONATHAN FURLONG That\u2019s what I mean, but things like smoke control doesn\u2019t get covered, nor AOVs, even alarm panels won\u2019t get covered. And an evac system will get covered because that\u2019s firefighting system for fire fighters only. Door control and other stuff like that, none of that has to get checked, so people need to be realistic on what is required and where we\u2019re going. And even the cost of doing those checks is a huge uplift on current situations.<\/p>\n

VICTORIA FINN I think most of us do the alarms monthly anyway. If your AOVs are attached to it, you\u2019d be checking them as well.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE What are you saying these things aren\u2019t covered? Which document? Smoke control, fire alarm systems etc are all covered in 9999 which is referenced from 9991 which is the management of apartment blocks. And it\u2019s very very clearly, look at annex I, it tells you what you have to do daily, monthly, weekly. One of the other issues with smoke control systems particularly is they\u2019re passive, so unless you go and test them by setting an alarm off they don\u2019 work because they\u2019re sitting there waiting for an alarm. So you don\u2019t know if any of the parts in it move or do anything else. One of the things you said earlier, these things don\u2019t message somebody. They can, but you have to pay for it at the start and this is the problem: everything is available and relatively cheap, but people don\u2019t want it.<\/p>\n

But what they\u2019re doing is, certainly from fire and smoke safety, you keep ignoring these things which is what everybody has been doing. Somebody said they\u2019d just been on a Level 4 risk assessment course and they didn\u2019t mention smoke control and ventilation fire dampers. I\u2019m thinking, well, what\u2019s the point? These are the things that are there to protect you actually in the fire, they\u2019re hidden but if they don\u2019t work you\u2019re in trouble, and they\u2019re not in a risk assessment requirement.<\/p>\n

JONATHAN FURLONG There is a difference between what\u2019s required under the Building Safety Act and the supplementary legislation and other things. BS9999 is a code of practice, it\u2019s not a legislative requirement, and there is where the industry needs to ultimately get to. And when you say some of these things are easily done and are relatively affordable\u2026<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE I said they\u2019re expensive, but they have to be done. Just take the Grenfell enquiry, why did you not follow this code of practice when your building burnt down? Answer that question. And you\u2019ve got to bear this in mind, these things can wreck companies, they can wreck people and they can wreck the people who work for you because unfortunately this is now a fact of life. I\u2019m talking with contractors all the time where they won\u2019t do anything because they\u2019re so risk averse. And you cannot keep relying on it doesn\u2019t tell me in the law not to do this because you will be found at fault.<\/p>\n

JONATHAN FURLONG I\u2019m not disagreeing, but `I\u2019m just saying the reality of where we are and where we need to get to. Going back to Victoria, you test your fire alarms every month, I know lots of other housing associations who definitely do not test every month, there is no requirement to test them every month. And when they do get tested, most of these get tested individually. They don\u2019t get tested as a whole in a cause and effect point of view. The lifts will get tested, but they get tested to make sure that they\u2019re operational, it doesn\u2019t actually mean they\u2019re operating correctly, and in a huge number of instances\u2026I\u2019ve never been to a building where all of the main fire safety systems have been tested that they have all worked as per their design as per cause and effect. Now, some fo them have been rally minor, tiny issues, but I\u2019ve yet to come across a building where everything works exactly how it should as it was designed.<\/p>\n

So for me a lot of this is just the idea of where the industry should get to, let\u2019s focus on using data and BIM and best practices, focus on the stuff that\u2019s going to make the residents the safest. Because if some of the advice goes to clients, even the word live for me brings up fears that if you go too far organisations will just go I\u2019m ignoring it because there is no way we can do it. While if you get to a point of view where you\u2019re focusing on the absolute critical stuff that\u2019s going to make the most major difference that\u2019s realistic and proportionate. If you get to that stage then people adopt it and they\u2019ll do it and therefore people are safer. If you go too far with some of this stuff it gets ignored.<\/p>\n

RICHARD What we were talking about just now, if you look at number 22, this is about addressing compliance holistically. So considering the building as a system with interconnected components, which a couple of you have touched on in the last few minutes.<\/p>\n

VICTORIA FINN Under the RRO it was my belief that the fire alarm needed to have a weekly test, so that\u2019s not an in-depth one, that\u2019s to test that the system is working, and that\u2019s why we do it weekly. If we\u2019re talking about maintenance or if we\u2019re talking about testing, there is two different things there, which Jonny did allude to as well. I don\u2019t want to get that confused.<\/p>\n

RICHARD Holistic compliance, looking at the building as a whole and complete system.<\/p>\n

GLENN BRAWN I think some of these guidelines and regulations, listening to what Jonny has been saying, are so ambiguous. What does holistic compliance mean? You\u2019re either compliant, or you\u2019re not. And every element that is required to be checked, we\u2019re building our platform on that basis to make it easier\u2026for local authorities or developers. What does holistic compliance mean? Yes, the building is an interconnected system of relative components, but I just wondered what that actually means.<\/p>\n

GEORGE What it\u2019s intended to mean is that simply going and doing a fire door check in itself doesn\u2019t really address it. It\u2019s a matter of looking at compartmentation, for example.<\/p>\n

GLENN BRAWN All of these elements are interconnected, which i understand, but each element has to be checked weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly, and that all pulls together to provide this holistic\u2026some stuff is quite obvious and some less, in terms of the stuff I\u2019ve read particularly over the last six months from people who are supposed to be giving the diktat as to what you\u2019re supposed to do. so no wonder people are confused.<\/p>\n

GEORGE What we can contribute it the information side of things and therefore having a relationship between what the individual assets are, what systems they\u2019re part of and how those systems then interact with other systems to be able to address the particular risk. Unless we actually have the information about the assets and how they\u2019re connected to systems, which quite frankly generally the asset information that we have doesn\u2019t give that type of interconnection, then it means that doing the overall compliance and therefore relating that back to the safety management system that you\u2019ve got some broken links there.<\/p>\n

GLENN BRAWN I agree, and what we\u2019re trying to do, obviously we\u2019re a commercial outfit, but for the good of the sector we\u2019re trying to work with, because every housing association, for example, haas got a different system that does a different thing. A lot of this is about interoperability between systems that can speak to each other. So, things like Dwellant, for example, who a lot of people use, just build an API so we can talk to those systems and we can provide that holistic compliance view of that particular building. It\u2019s about doing that more often than not and working with those in our sector, which is a new thing to a certain extent.<\/p>\n

SIMON COLLERY I agree that holistic and even systemic and viewing things as a system can be a little bit vague, but there is a sentence in the 1971 version of the CP3 go-to practice and it says the difficulty of making comprehensive recommendations capable of covering every possible risk should be appreciated and an intelligent application of the principles and the recommendations that follow is therefore essential. I think they\u2019re saying that you can\u2019t list every single hazard and every risk and every area of compliance individually, but you would expect somebody with the competence to maintain a building safety case or to write a building safety case report, that they have the intelligence to know what is important, what needs to be added, and how words should be interpreted. Like, for example, live as opposed to up-to-date because I do agree that live could be interpreted in a way that makes it impossible to comply with.<\/p>\n

DANIEL O\u2019DOWD I think there is a kind of challenge here. Often I\u2019m brought back to thinking about the whole making tax digital thing, which I think went fairly well because you could build standard APIs to make calls of those systems. And actually a lot of people have made a lot of money building digital tools to for you to manage your finances. In fact the thought of getting a bunch of papers through your door to or having a bunch of papers in your house to manage all of that stuff would just be absolutely ridiculous now. The challenge that is brought on with buildings is that it\u2019s almost like you have to design the system every single time because the buildings are designed differently every single time. I think that if we\u2019re going to get anywhere close to it we have to start to think about a standardised system for digitising any component.<\/p>\n

And off of the back of that you have a sort of plug and play approach where you can link up an application to any building, and that should really be the ideal that we\u2019re striving for if we want to understand. I guess that word holistic is a bit of a buzz word, but if we want to understand a building as a data model and then be able to gap analysis or fill that in or continue that throughout, we really need to start thinking about how we standardise the digital aspect of it across all buildings. There needs to be a system at the very least in the UK, that does it for every single building that we have, otherwise it\u2019s an impossible task.<\/p>\n

As someone who is quite involved in automation I find that that\u2019s the biggest tripping point for any automation is that you get someone who does a great automation on a project and it only works for that project. And then you have to run the entire start-up cost again for the next project, so you want a kind of framework. And I think that building SMART and IFC are trying to do this in some regard, basically to make that framework that with each new building you can take the application, you might even end up with micro-applications, like OK, this is the application that checks the fire alarms, this is the application that does that.<\/p>\n

And you have different vendors that provide those micro-applications, just like you have different vendors that provide you all sorts of financial tools. But the point is they all need to be able to plug in to your building every single time, and I think without that the task is really, really hard. Our fire teams, it surprised me coming from architecture to the fire safety team, I\u2019d see a lot more documentation about existing buildings in the fire team. And it surprised me all the time how badly managed that information is. It\u2019s like even if we did want to completely digitise it into a system there\u2019s missing things all over the place, and then it\u2019s like OK, even if we have all of the information structuring that information is kind of difficult.<\/p>\n

RICHARD It\u2019s about information management and also that word again, standardised, that keeps popping up. Which brings me with a great segue onto Alan. Because Alan is working very hard at the moment on our publication for standardising fire door inspections. Alan, what are your feelings on holistic building management?<\/p>\n

ALAN OLIVER I am aware that there is a number of people in today\u2019s group meeting that haven\u2019t been involved in the creation of this document. Under a BIM4housing working group over the last year (and it has taken all year) we\u2019ve adapted a health care reference document on how to inspect fire doors. The original reference document said that you should inspect them three ways; you should have a Type 1 inspection for band new doors; a Type 2 inspection for existing doors; and a Type 3 existing ongoing PPM inspection for doors that have previously been either Type 1 or type 2 inspected. The type 1 inspection is very prescriptive and it\u2019s examining the golden thread of information compared to what\u2019s actually been installed, so you should ensure that it\u2019s very robust.<\/p>\n

The Type 2 inspection, however, allows you to be more pragmatic because quite clearly you can\u2019t rip out every single fire door in the country where you haven\u2019t got a perfect golden thread of information and where it\u2019s not 100% perfect as tested. So this allows you to take a pragmatic view on the doors, depending on the location of the doors and their criticality. I believe we\u2019ve successfully adapted the healthcare version into a residential version, and for anybody who hasn\u2019t been in the working group I\u2019d be very happy to send you what is just about the final draft ready for sign off and issue in January.<\/p>\n

Taking that background aside, what we\u2019re saying is that with existing doors that are unlikely to be perfect and where you have got a golden thread of information, some of them might be more than 30 years old, you\u2019ve got to take a pragmatic risk management view.<\/p>\n

And one of the things you have got to do is look at the fire doors in the context of everything else in that building, and the size of the building and the complexity of the building and the level of risk of that building. So bearing in mind this came from a healthcare background, if you imaging a healthcare estate they might have a number of buildings. Some might be like a one-storey training room, another one might be a maternity unit on the 8th floor or a tower block. So you\u2019re looking at the location of the doors and looking at everything holistically, looking at all of the fire safety measures in place. So I believe that you can look at a building holistically and you don\u2019t have to have every fire safety measure in that building that\u2019s perfect because some things can be counteracting and compensating for others.<\/p>\n

VICTORIA FINN We\u2019re being asked to renew doors that have not got bidirectional testing. Just thinking about the comments there about having doors that are 30 years old, probably most of us won\u2019t be able to have doors that are 30 years old because they \u2019re not bidirectional tested and we\u2019ve been asked to renew them. It makes me think, that\u2019s not being holistic, is it? In one way we\u2019re being asked to look at things holistically, and we should be looking at things holistically, but then we\u2019re being asked (especially on FRAs) that we need to be renewing those doors because they\u2019re not bidirectional tested. But we have got full alarms, compartmentation is completely intact and we\u2019ve got sprinklers in. So holistically we should be able to do what you\u2019ve just said and look at the door from that view point, but\u2026<\/p>\n

GEORGE Who\u2019s asking you?<\/p>\n

VICTORIAN FINN It was legislation that we had to have bidirectional tested doors on blocks of flats over 18 metres.<\/p>\n

GEORGE It\u2019s legislation. Is that right, Alan?<\/p>\n

ALAN OLIVER No, the fire door industry (I\u2019m going to be fairly cynical here) is driven by test houses and fire door manufacturers who would love you to replace every door in every one of your buildings. But some of your doors are probably fit for purpose and could probably be risk managed and some of them could probably be certified under BRE LPCB LPS1197 as being suitable and sufficient for their location, providing the client understands the limitations of that certification and is happy that they understand the limitations and they\u2019ve had them expertly assessed.<\/p>\n

GEORGE I\u2019d be surprised if the legislation actually explicitly says that you\u2019ve got to\u2026is that right, Vic?<\/p>\n

VICTORIA FINN Yeah, that\u2019s how I\u2019m interpreting it, and again, obviously the legislation as always is subjective. It\u2019s also coming through on the FRAs, can you show that that\u2019s bidirectionally tested. No we can\u2019t, and while it\u2019s in situ you never can. So if that\u2019s the requirement of the FRAs the only way we can do that is by renewing the door. But then it\u2019s a snapshot in time again, because as soon as you leave that property anything can happen to that door. That\u2019s what I\u2019m saying, it\u2019s not holistic, we should be able to look at what else is there. We know we\u2019ve got very good compartmentation and we know it\u2019s regularly reviewed, we know that we\u2019ve got sprinklers in place etc, so realistically we should be able to leave that door in place.<\/p>\n

And then of course once we\u2019ve replaced it anyway, when we\u2019re going and having a look on an annual basis at those front entrance fire doors, we\u2019re looking against the Trada questions as a base of what to look at. Looking at the door, it's got this, it\u2019s got that, it\u2019s fine. But obviously again it\u2019s subjective to the person who\u2019s looking at it, even if you\u2019ve got a set of questions it\u2019s subjective. So, I agree with the holistic view, to look at what else is there, but this is what we\u2019re being asked to do and this is what\u2019s also being picked up on the FRAs to replace these doors.<\/p>\n

ALAN OLIVER Who is asking you to do it?<\/p>\n

VICTORIA FINN I interpret the legislation as that anyway, but our fire risk assessors, external assessors are asking for them to be done and asking if they\u2019ve got bidirectional testing. We\u2019ve even been asked by the fire service that they\u2019ve got bidirectional testing, and I know a lot of other RPs are doing the same.<\/p>\n

ALAN OLIVER So how many doors will you be potentially replacing in the next 12 months?<\/p>\n

VICTORIA FINN we\u2019ve nearly done them all. 1200.<\/p>\n

JONATHAN FURLONG \u2026organisations I\u2019ve seen are taking a different view. This is part of the problem though in the industry, some stuff sometimes just isn\u2019t clear and what some people think\u2026some people will go that\u2019s best practice, but not a legislative absolute requirement, and other people will be I see it as a requirement, and some of this is tough. As I say, just simply on the weekly testing organisations I\u2019ve been involved with in the past or organisations I know of say absolutely no weekly testing, no requirement, so we won\u2019t do weekly testing, we\u2019ll do monthly testing. Because it\u2019s a fourfold increase and if you have 300 blocks that\u2019s a huge amount.<\/p>\n

RICHARD That\u2019s a very expensive interpretation that you have to make, that\u2019s extraordinary. We know Bex, they\u2019ve ripped all of theirs out.<\/p>\n

GLENN BRAWN I was at London Build a few weeks ago and there was a really good fire safety stage, I was absolutely astounded that Neville Tomblin from Southampton City Council, they didn\u2019t check any of their doors and they just ripped them all out and replaced them all. And is it any wonder, as Alan said, there\u2019s cowboy fire door firms out there where perfectly good doors that don\u2019t need work are being replaced at high cost. It\u2019s absolute insanity.<\/p>\n

ALAN OLIVER Clearly what Vic is doing is the best scenario, if you\u2019ve got the money and you can afford to replace all of your doors. One of my concerns is that people are not getting robust fire door protocols in place and they\u2019re going to manage and maintain them so that they keep to that standard because the concern is that in 5 years-time it could be that other organisations, they\u2019ve got the same scenario in 5 years-time because maybe they\u2019ve not been installed under third-party certification. Maybe not all of the components are as-tested, maybe they\u2019re not going to be managed and maintained. And if people are going to replace all of their doors the one thing they need to have for sure is a robust set of fire door protocols where everything joins up and you\u2019re going to make sure that you don\u2019t have to do the same thing in 5-10 years-time.<\/p>\n

PAUL WHITE The first point is on the fire doors, if they\u2019re very old then have a look and see what legislation or guidance was in place at the time because you only have to meet the legislation of when the building was constructed. So if the legislation was in place at the time that said you could do this then you\u2019re absolutely fine. There might be other reasons why they might be unsound, but if they met the requirements at the time the building was built then you don\u2019t have to change anything.<\/p>\n

The other thing is that if you think fire doors are bad you haven\u2019t even thought about fire dampers yet, because I bet I can go into any of the buildings that any of you are related to and they\u2019ve got fire dampers in, that there is a high proportion of those that weren\u2019t installed properly and it will be obvious. And hopefully when you have your next fire damper inspection that people are doing it more competently now, rather than just checking that they open and close, and you\u2019re potentially going to have a completely different issue there.<\/p>\n

DANIEL O\u2019DOWD Hearing the conversation I\u2019m wondering in the scenario that was noted there of the doors being completely replaced, how much is it to commission an inspection of that door? Get the person inspecting the door to add a certificate or dig up the certificate you\u2019ve already got which may or may not be there and then digitise that, versus someone who may come along and say if I install a new door I\u2019m going to provide you with every piece of information that is required under the current legislation.<\/p>\n

And I wonder then it that scenario, OK, it\u2019s definitely better for the environment to keep the door that you\u2019ve already got, but in terms of you won business operation security, in terms of legal security, in terms of having all of the information that you need and so on, I do wonder (though I feel it may be in one direction) that\u2019s why it makes more sense a lot of the time to replace\u2026<\/p>\n

RICHARD It\u2019s cheaper to replace it than go through all of the rigmarole.<\/p>\n

DANIEL O\u2019DOWD I don\u2019t know, I\u2019ve not got experience of doing that process, but it\u2019s something that I wonder about.<\/p>\n

GEORGE One observation on that is that I\u2019s spoken to several councils who have done that. I know one that\u2019s replaced 4000 doors and the new doors that they\u2019ve had installed, over 70% of them have failed inspection. So you\u2019re replacing a door that probably was working\u2026there\u2019s no excuse for that, that\u2019s down to the competence of the people that are installing it. but that\u2019s a common complaint that I\u2019ve heard of.<\/p>\n

ALAN OLIVER Three things: the first one is that i take issue with what Paul said about the fact that all you have to do is see when the door was installed and whether it met the standards at the time because that\u2019s overridden by the fire safety order that says that a door has now got to be suitable and sufficient for its location. The second thing is you're absolutely right that a brand new door might not be installed correctly. You\u2019ve got to look at the complete golden thread of information and just because you\u2019ve got a brand new fully certified manufactured fire door you can make a complete horlicks of installing it. It\u2019s out there in the public domain where that\u2019s been happening on numerous occasions going back a long time. And what was your last point, George?<\/p>\n

GEORGE That the installation may not actually address the problem and you end up with a door that probably was working OK but you didn\u2019t have the right certification against it. Or it hadn\u2019t been tested for that and you\u2019re replacing it with one that doesn\u2019t do the job.<\/p>\n

ALAN OLIVER Yes, you\u2019re coming back to this golden thread of information. The point I was going to make is the test houses and the fire door manufacturers will love you to go out and buy a brand new door. If you\u2019re going to be really cynical you\u2019d say they\u2019d also love you to install that door really badly, so that you\u2019ve then got to replace it again in a few years time. And this is where the whole system is flawed. The other point I was picking up is it\u2019s not just the fire door installers who have to be competent, it\u2019s the client who has to fully understand how a brand new fire door has got to be signed off competently and it\u2019s the got to be managed and maintained competently.<\/p>\n

RICHARD We\u2019ve covered a lot of ground today. We\u2019re obviously going to take onboard this meeting, all of our meetings are recorded and highpoint notes written up which are sent out to you. We\u2019ll be taking onboard all the comments we\u2019ve had by email and obviously today and rejigging, rewriting those questions which will then be put out, published in January as recommendations from BIM4Housing. You\u2019ll all receive a copy and a draft to actually input into that.<\/p>\n

GEORGE Basically the work-streams and the working groups, we have them all published on the website https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/<\/a> so that you can actually see, for example, what we\u2019ve been doing n the fire safety workstream and you see the questions that we had from last week. We\u2019ve got the recording of the session itself, so you can actually replay and go back and see. What i tend to do with this is set it on a faster speed and then just go through and you can pick up quite a lot from that. We also put the highpoints into a document so that we\u2019ve got that all recorded.<\/p>\n

CHAT<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

[11:06] Rene Van Zwijndrecht<\/p>\n

I Believe \u201clive\u201d will not be as live as we want. In the interim, there should be a procedure\/platform in place to keep accurate change records so that at any point the latest changes can be pinpointed. It might be that a change is in progress so there won\u2019t be updates however a way of showing it is in progress and will be updated via process.<\/p>\n

[11:12] Victoria Finn<\/p>\n

perhaps there needs to be a more robust engagement of architects and requirements set out for changes<\/p>\n

[11:31] Ben Blackwood<\/p>\n

Agree<\/p>\n

[11:34] Rene Van Zwijndrecht<\/p>\n

Yes, Agree, and it requires constant maintenance of the information. We put into our proposals the maintenance aspect.<\/p>\n

[11:37] Jonathan Furlong<\/p>\n

Agree proportionate.<\/p>\n

[11:44] Colin White\u00a0 smoke control dampers ltd (Guest)<\/p>\n

Up to date a much better word<\/p>\n

[11:51] Glenn Brawn<\/p>\n

Essential Fire Fighting equipment is monthly. The problem that remains is the guidance and ambiguity still from HSE.<\/p>\n

[11:56] Ben Blackwood<\/p>\n

Fire alarms are required to be tested weekly<\/p>\n

[11:58] Victoria Finn<\/p>\n

that is my belief under RRO<\/p>\n

[12:11] Ben Blackwood<\/p>\n

YES PLEASE!<\/p>\n

[12:12] Colin White\u00a0 smoke control dampers ltd (Guest)<\/p>\n

Yes please for me as well.<\/p>\n

[12:13] Glenn Brawn<\/p>\n

And Me<\/p>\n

[12:13] Daniel O'Dowd<\/p>\n

yes please<\/p>\n

[12:13] Victoria Finn<\/p>\n

but as we are being asked to renew doors that don\u2019t have bi directional testing that isnt holistic<\/p>\n

[12:13] Jonathan Furlong<\/p>\n

yes for advanced copy please<\/p>\n

[12:13] Simon Collery (Guest)<\/p>\n

Excellent response, Alan.<\/p>\n

[12:15] Glenn Brawn<\/p>\n

This is very true!!<\/p>\n

[12:16] Jonathan Furlong<\/p>\n

Ben in residential under RFO i do not believe there are weekly checks required only monthly<\/p>\n

but i could be wrong https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/publications\/fire-safety-england-regulations-2022\/fact-sheet-overview<\/a><\/p>\n

[12:23] Ben Blackwood<\/p>\n

BS9999 and BS5839-1 states weekly.\u00a0 I would say that the FSER is an absolute minimum. \u00a0 In a complex building, is the absolute minimum adequate?<\/p>\n

[12:23] Jonathan Furlong<\/p>\n

Residential is rarely classed as complex<\/p>\n

[12:24] Glenn Brawn<\/p>\n

Very true. Perfectly good FD's being chucked<\/p>\n

[12:27] Ben Blackwood<\/p>\n

A higher risk building with multiple systems and tenures I would personally test weekly.\u00a0 Especially with the experience of how often they break.<\/p>\n

But agree that a proportionate risk based judgement is appropriate.<\/p>\n

[12:29] Jonathan Furlong<\/p>\n

Ben agree weekly is best practice, but a difference between best practice, legal requirement and proportionate<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

BIM4Housing Follow-Up to Levelling Up Committee Meetings – Q4- How do we ensure that the Building Safety data is live – not an outdated snapshot in time? GEORGE We\u2019ve got fire risk assessments, we\u2019ve got the External Wall Survey assessments and we\u2019ve got now the safety case reports. All of those are things that have…<\/p>\n

Read More<\/span>+<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-530","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\nQ4 - How do we ensure that the Building Safety data is live \u2013 not an outdated snapshot in time? - BIM4Housing Fire Safety<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/q4-how-do-we-ensure-that-the-building-safety-data-is-live-not-an-outdated-snapshot-in-time\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Q4 - How do we ensure that the Building Safety data is live \u2013 not an outdated snapshot in time? - BIM4Housing Fire Safety\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"BIM4Housing Follow-Up to Levelling Up Committee Meetings - Q4- How do we ensure that the Building Safety data is live - not an outdated snapshot in time? GEORGE We\u2019ve got fire risk assessments, we\u2019ve got the External Wall Survey assessments and we\u2019ve got now the safety case reports. All of those are things that have…Read More+\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/q4-how-do-we-ensure-that-the-building-safety-data-is-live-not-an-outdated-snapshot-in-time\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"BIM4Housing Fire Safety\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/q4-how-do-we-ensure-that-the-building-safety-data-is-live-not-an-outdated-snapshot-in-time\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/q4-how-do-we-ensure-that-the-building-safety-data-is-live-not-an-outdated-snapshot-in-time\\\/\",\"name\":\"Q4 - How do we ensure that the Building Safety data is live \u2013 not an outdated snapshot in time? - BIM4Housing Fire Safety\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-12-20T18:14:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/q4-how-do-we-ensure-that-the-building-safety-data-is-live-not-an-outdated-snapshot-in-time\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/q4-how-do-we-ensure-that-the-building-safety-data-is-live-not-an-outdated-snapshot-in-time\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/q4-how-do-we-ensure-that-the-building-safety-data-is-live-not-an-outdated-snapshot-in-time\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Q4 – How do we ensure that the Building Safety data is live \u2013 not an outdated snapshot in time?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/\",\"name\":\"BIM4Housing Fire Safety\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/bim4housing.com\\\/fire-safety\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Q4 - How do we ensure that the Building Safety data is live \u2013 not an outdated snapshot in time? - BIM4Housing Fire Safety","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/q4-how-do-we-ensure-that-the-building-safety-data-is-live-not-an-outdated-snapshot-in-time\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Q4 - How do we ensure that the Building Safety data is live \u2013 not an outdated snapshot in time? - BIM4Housing Fire Safety","og_description":"BIM4Housing Follow-Up to Levelling Up Committee Meetings - Q4- How do we ensure that the Building Safety data is live - not an outdated snapshot in time? GEORGE We\u2019ve got fire risk assessments, we\u2019ve got the External Wall Survey assessments and we\u2019ve got now the safety case reports. All of those are things that have…Read More+","og_url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/q4-how-do-we-ensure-that-the-building-safety-data-is-live-not-an-outdated-snapshot-in-time\/","og_site_name":"BIM4Housing Fire Safety","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/q4-how-do-we-ensure-that-the-building-safety-data-is-live-not-an-outdated-snapshot-in-time\/","url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/q4-how-do-we-ensure-that-the-building-safety-data-is-live-not-an-outdated-snapshot-in-time\/","name":"Q4 - How do we ensure that the Building Safety data is live \u2013 not an outdated snapshot in time? - BIM4Housing Fire Safety","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-12-20T18:14:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/q4-how-do-we-ensure-that-the-building-safety-data-is-live-not-an-outdated-snapshot-in-time\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/q4-how-do-we-ensure-that-the-building-safety-data-is-live-not-an-outdated-snapshot-in-time\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/q4-how-do-we-ensure-that-the-building-safety-data-is-live-not-an-outdated-snapshot-in-time\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Q4 – How do we ensure that the Building Safety data is live \u2013 not an outdated snapshot in time?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/#website","url":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/","name":"BIM4Housing Fire Safety","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/530","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=530"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/530\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":531,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/530\/revisions\/531"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=530"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=530"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bim4housing.com\/fire-safety\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=530"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}