To take the cost consequences for the consideration of the new fire alarm standard BS5839 2002 in all its parts is a case in point. Any responsible person would have great difficulty in ignoring the very sound justification for the need to have their existing system redesigned.

Any competent person can easily justify the need for better and easier detection when they survey unfamiliar premises and perceive risks that need not have been considered under previous fire precautions legislation and premises certification regime.

The cost impact of these changes are enormous for UK business even to establish exactly the difference between a system that conformed to BS 5839 pre 2002 and the current requirement for the risk matrix associated with same building, doing the same thing, purpose group under previous fire precaution regime.

Similarly is the need to consider the risk of people with disability. It is a given that consideration should be given specifically for an identified real risk but a competent person is now expected to make provision and fire safety arrangements based on the assumption that it is a certainty that there will be people with disabilities within the assessment area. It could be deemed discriminatory not to consider this as very probable rather than a vague possibility.

The problem facing so many competent people is that so much is expected from them in isolation. The risk assessment process outlined in guidance still relies too heavily on the risk assessor identifying what he regards as significant. Is an alarm system that is not designed to current standards a significant risk? It must be, who would argue with the panel of experts that put best practice together.