Timber framed and tall building fire risks - responses published - News-content | Fire safety news events and jobs - info4fire

Timber framed and tall building fire risks - responses published

31 May 2011

The government has reiterated that it has no plans to introduce a mandatory standard for training and accreditation of fire risk assessors, nor of amending the fire safety provisions of the Building Regulations.

The comments from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) are among the formal responses published this month by the London Assembly to its December 2010 report into fire risks in tall and timber framed buildings.

While stopping short of any mandatory measures, DCLG says it welcomes the fire sector’s lead in developing criteria against which fire risk assessors can be assessed:

“We will continue to support the work of the Fire Risk Assessment Competency Council, and expect the outcome of its work to be one or more registers of competent risk assessors whose certification process has been independently quality assured. This will offer those with responsibilities under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 greater confidence in identifying those with an appropriate level of competency to help them comply with the legislation.”

DCLG’s response is one of around 15 formal responses to the London Assembly report. The report made a number of recommendations including minimum standards for fire risk assessors, improved fire safety during the construction of timber frame buildings, and a requirement for all social housing landlords to publish a register of fire risk assessments.


 


     
RSS feeds Print content Share

Add Comment

Simon Ince
This strong statement of support by DCLG for independently audited schemes is a positive and significant development for the industry. It sends a very clear message to the competence council, which will hopefully allow them to take the next important steps to improving standards. The end user organisations now need to assist in making the registers the ‘go to’ place for fire risk assessment consultants. Without this pull from those who appoint risk assessors; standards won’t improve.

Posted on 01/06/11 09:49.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
John Ball
I have a problem with the "Registers"
1.They are costly to join.
2.Are the bodies themselves "competant" if they are not undertaking FRA's how are they proving continued competance?

I carryout an average of 20 FRA a month, everything from toilet ablusions to petro-chemical plants, I have a 100% audit of my work from senior fire safety area managers, I have a 10% check of my work from regional enforcement managers. But we will not be joining any registers, (I suspect).

Posted on 03/06/11 14:05.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Dr Bob Docherty
I read this as a most positive 'take' by the DLG (and therefore government) for third party/independent accreditation for any risk assessors registers and schemes being held by organisations. I still think the sensible move is to have one national independently accredited register where all risk assessors register their competency - thats the 'go to' place that both myself and the Institute of Fire Safety Managers would like, and thats why the IFSM supports the FRACS scheme.

Posted on 03/06/11 14:44.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Dr Bob Docherty
In answer to John Ball, hey John! if you are that busy and that good, I thought you would have wanted to ensure the standard of yourself and your professional peers would be as high as your work. This way you prove your competency and if you are good you have nothing to fear! If this is not controlled in any way, how do you know you will be doing all those FRAs in the future, the cowboys might just take it over!

Posted on 03/06/11 14:44 in reply to John Ball.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Simon Ince
John you and every other fire risk assessor in the country thinks they are competent, I fully accept that fact. I can’t imagine any fire risk assessor who tells their clients that they aren’t, will be doing any risk assessments at all; never mind 20 a month. The reality is that the good the bad and the ugly fire risk assessors out there are all doing 20 a month. If the good don’t take a stand the bad and ugly won’t have to improve and nothing will change, standards will fall due to competition.

Posted on 08/06/11 10:37.

Post Reply Post Reply Top Top
Showing 5 results.

Related Content

jobs4securityandfire.com

Latest
jobs