Sussex firms failing fire safety tests

3:50pm Monday 18th February 2013 in News By Ben James

Samantha Coull was ordered to pay more than £26,000 after she put the lives of her employees at risk in a huge fire at Beach Break Cafe in Kings Road Arches – Picture by Jo Renshaw Samantha Coull was ordered to pay more than £26,000 after she put the lives of her employees at risk in a huge fire at Beach Break Cafe in Kings Road Arches – Picture by Jo Renshaw

Two out of every three businesses inspected by fire officials are putting lives at risk.

Of the 119 commercial and public buildings tested in East Sussex in October, November and December, just 35 were up to scratch – with 84 requiring either formal or informal action.

But Mark Hobbs, a legislation and enforcement officer at East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service, said business owners often viewed firefighters as an enemy who were just trying to force up their bills.

He said: “It is fair to say that compliance is not quite what it should be.

“We are sometimes viewed as the bad guys who go around telling people to spend money on expensive equipment.

“But all we are trying to do is prevent a tragedy like the one we’ve seen recently in Brazil.”

Of the 84 premises that failed inspections, two were immediately closed until improvements were made.

A further six were given weeks to tackle the problems or told they would be taken to court.

Among those falling foul were Venture Industrial Park in St Leonards, After 5 takeaway in Hove and Avalon Nursing Home in Nevill Avenue, Eastbourne.

Unprotected

An inspection at the care home found not all doors were fire resistant, fire exits had obstacles in their way, electrical boards were unprotected and there were no real safety drills in place.

Related links

On November 8, Papas Snack Bar and Restaurant in Oxford Street, Brighton, was forced to restrict access to the flat above the business after inspectors found that not only was there no fire alarm or detection system for the upstairs accommodation but also no escape route for residents to use safely.

In August, Samantha Coull was ordered to pay more than £26,000 after she put the lives of her employees at risk in a huge fire at Beach Break Cafe in Kings Road Arches in Brighton.

Magistrates were told there was only one domestic fire alarm in the shop and that was not working.

Flammable

The fire started due to a build up of grease in a poorly maintained extraction duct which was set alight by a faulty chip fryer.

Mark McCullough, the owner of Brighton’s Hotel 19 in Broad Street, was also prosecuted after inspectors found not only did his fire doors not meet safety standards but there was no fire door connecting the ground and lower ground floors.

Additionally inspectors found that flammable bed linen, DVDs and CDs were stored on two floors under the seven-bedroom hotel’s only staircase.

For more details on the regulations and help for business owners visit www.esfrs.org.

See the latest news headlines from The Argus:

More news from The Argus

Follow @brightonargus

Daily Echo on Facebook - facebook.com/southerndailyecho Like us on Facebook

Google+ Add us to your circles on Google+

Comments(3)

still waiting says...
5:17pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Another example of the law of unintended consequences. About 10 years ago if I remember rightly the law changed. Instead of having firefighters and extra fire safety officers going round and advising people the onus was shifted solely onto businesses who were required to comply with fire safety legislation without necessarily knowing what was sufficient and what was not. Firefighters no longer routinely offered advice as to what was required, but their role was changed more towards enforcement. Thus, as the article shows "business owners often viewed firefighters as an enemy who were just trying to force up their bills". The solution seems to have been in the proliferation of small firms that have sprung up since offering fire safety advice and inspection reports. These have offered good employment opportunities for retired firefighters and those on their days off. Fair enough, people have to make their money where they can. But you can't be an "enforcer" and a "good guy" at the same time, and whilst nobody probably has much sympathy for those businesses that flout fire safety rules, an awful lot of them are just waiting for someone to come along and prosecute because one fire inspector's view may not be contiguous with another's.

Report this post »

bogs says...
10:20pm Mon 18 Feb 13

Yes of course Brazil. DO ME A FAVOUR! Jobsworth.

Report this post »

Royal_Recruit says...
10:05am Tue 19 Feb 13

still waiting wrote:
Another example of the law of unintended consequences. About 10 years ago if I remember rightly the law changed. Instead of having firefighters and extra fire safety officers going round and advising people the onus was shifted solely onto businesses who were required to comply with fire safety legislation without necessarily knowing what was sufficient and what was not. Firefighters no longer routinely offered advice as to what was required, but their role was changed more towards enforcement. Thus, as the article shows "business owners often viewed firefighters as an enemy who were just trying to force up their bills". The solution seems to have been in the proliferation of small firms that have sprung up since offering fire safety advice and inspection reports. These have offered good employment opportunities for retired firefighters and those on their days off. Fair enough, people have to make their money where they can. But you can't be an "enforcer" and a "good guy" at the same time, and whilst nobody probably has much sympathy for those businesses that flout fire safety rules, an awful lot of them are just waiting for someone to come along and prosecute because one fire inspector's view may not be contiguous with another's.
The inspecting officers are enforcers make no mistake. They have big targets to prosecute and make notices. East Sussex is particularly good at using common sense and the enforcement concordat to give businesses a chance to comply. Business complained the last regulations were prescriptive so when the law changed to allow freedom to devise your own way of getting to a level of reasonably safety, again business complain and now they want to be told what to do. You are right that the views of the law can be intrepreted differently between individulas but thats where the power of a decent risk assessor comes in. One who is unbiased, doesn't maintain any of your equipment and who isn't trying to sell you anything else. Someone with qualifications, experience and insurance. A suitable and sufficient risk assessment can actually help your business in many ways such as reducing the amount of extinguishers for example.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree