Facilitating Means of Escape: Maintaining the balance with physical access control

Under Article 12 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the designated ‘responsible person’ must ensure that “routes to emergency exits from premises and the exits themselves are kept clear at all times.” The provision of a clear and straightforward means of escape is vital for life safety, any failure to do so can prove to be immensely costly − in every sense of the word.

The importance of effective escape routes is highlighted by British engineer and civil servant Dame Judith Hackitt in her Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety. “One of the significant risks created by these emergency situations,” observes Dame Judith, “is the possibility of panic resulting in crowding in escape routes and at exits where people may be put at risk of significant harm − emphasising the importance of ensuring that routes and exits have been designed, specified and constructed with this risk in mind.”

The Independent Review’s final report − published in May last year − was commissioned by central government following the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017 in order to make recommendations on the future regulatory system. In addition to a new regulatory system, Dame Judith also outlined the need for clear responsibilities (a lack of clarity on roles and responsibilities when it comes to buildings’ safety was, according to Dame Judith, one of the circumstances that realised the Grenfell Tower disaster), more rigorous enforcement powers for monitoring building safety, more effective product testing and better procurement practices.

All emergency routes and exits must lead as directly as possible to a place of safety and be adequate for everyone to escape quickly and safely, but far too frequently it appears that escape routes are becoming makeshift storage areas, while fire safety is itself becoming something of an afterthought.

A disregard for fire safety regulations can have dire consequences. Back on Tuesday 8 May 1979, a fire ripped through Manchester’s flagship Woolworths store opposite Piccadilly Gardens. A number of fire safety failures caused the death of ten people inside the premises and left 47 individuals with injuries.

It’s believed that the fire was started by a damaged electrical cable, which had furniture stacked in front of it. An inquiry showed that, although the store’s fire precautions met all legal requirements, the spread of the fire and the number of casualties were in part due to the absence of measures such as a fire sprinkler system to stop the spread of the fire from the Furniture Department, and the use of polyurethane foam in the furnishings − a material which is highly toxic, but cheap and at that time legal for use in items of furniture. The blaze would have consequences for later legislation.

Emergency exits were poorly marked; some exit doors required a key, while others had been locked to prevent shoplifting. Those attempting to flee the toxic smoke were unable to escape through the very doors that were there to save them. People died within touching distance of the emergency exits.

As we’re all well aware, tragedies involving flawed fire safety are not confined to the history books. Some 40 years later lessons have seemingly not been learned, escape routes and exits continue to be misused.