VOICES | HYWEL DAVIES Means of escape In July last year, the government announced that it expected residential buildings higher than 18m to contain a second staircase. Further details were set out last month. Hywel Davies explores the latest statement O n 19 February, Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, released a statement1 on the governments long-term plans for housing. It included four paragraphs on the provision of second staircases in higher-risk buildings namely, residential blocks above 18m in height. It also refers to evacuation lifts. One factor that contributed to the tragic loss of life in the Grenfell Tower fire was that the single stair core became unusable as a means of escape because of smoke. There has been debate about the need for a second means of escape ever since. Second staircases were consulted on in December 2022. A further speech committed to an 18m threshold in July 2023 and the latest statement follows speculation about the detailed policy. Gove has stated that the Building Safety BSR (BSR) will publish the new guidance on second staircases before April, making clear the need for a second staircase in new multi-occupancy residential buildings that have a top occupied storey above 18m, and confirming that evacuation lifts will not be called for as a matter of course, providing housebuilders with the clarity they need to progress developments. What does that actually mean for developers? It does not change their responsibility for the safety of their building. Government and the BSR are very clear that a developer applying for approval of full plans for a new residential building must show why they think the building will be safe to occupy. We must also be clear that there is no such thing as absolute safety. Second means of escape, sprinklers, evacuation lifts, even compartmentation and fire stopping may reduce risk, but they do not offer absolute safety. Building Regulations in England and the rest of the UK are currently at variance with many other jurisdictions around the world in allowing taller residential buildings to be constructed with a single means of escape. Last Julys announcement that new residential buildings above 18m in height would need a second stair left many questions open, such as whether this would be a requirement or just guidance in the Approved Document. How might developers of residential buildings respond to the latest statement? It seems clear that the BSR will expect them to provide a second means of escape but what will that look like? That depends on the fire-evacuation strategy, already required in the package submitted for approval of full plans known as Gateway 2, and signed off by developers at submission. Two functional requirements of the Building Regulations consider escape and access: appropriate means of escape from the building to a place of safety outside the building, capable of being safely and effectively used at all material times (B1) and reasonable provision for fire-fighting. (B5). The developer needs to decide whether they are looking to reduce evacuation times by providing a basic second staircase. Or are they providing an alternative access route for firefighters? That requires both a second stair and firefighting lift. Each building needs a decision by the client and design team. Goves statement says that evacuation lifts will not be called for as a matter of course. It could be taken to mean that, as a rule, they are to be expected, but a case may be made not to include one. It implies that its up to the client to decide how to provide for those who cannot evacuate using the stairs, and for the BSR to accept that decision (or not?). If the development contains social housing or student accommodation, there may be a public sector equality duty to consider in relation to the evacuation strategy. If it is entirely for sale or lease, how will that market react to the chosen strategy? When complete, it will need a BSR building assessment certificate confirming it is safe to occupy, requiring a safety case specific to the building. With an ageing population, safe and equitable access and means of escape is also a demographic issue. Buildings will need to be adaptable. It may be that the only feasible design with a realistic prospect of approval in many cases will incorporate two full cores offering genuine accessibility, resilience and redundancy in the event of a catastrophic incident. This would align with the stance of the National Fire Chiefs Council2. Rather than clarify the issue the Department has handed it back to the BSR and developers to resolve. And then to clarify through the first tranche of applications, appeals, determinations and maybe a judicial review? Rather than the government clarifying the issue, it has handed it back to the BSR and developers to resolve References: 1 Written Ministerial Statement: bit.ly/3PfvMsv 2N FCC Opinion paper bit.ly/49FmD43 DR HYWEL DAVIES HonFCIBSE is chief technical officer at CIBSE www.cibse.org www.cibsejournal.com March 2024 15 CIBSE March 24 pp15 Hywel.indd 15 23/02/2024 16:47