pmiller056 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 This news story got me thinking http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34755826 The theatre company involved is one of the larger, more experienced amateur companies in Glasgow - they have used the venue before so I'm surprised this has happened. I can only presume that there has been a change of personnel in the set-making department and knowledge has not been passed on. In the past I have been responsible for getting an amateur set into a commercial theatre and fire proofing / flame retardant treatment has always been a problem and is probably responsible for some of the grey hair that I now have. I have found that set fire safety is generally poorly understood in the amateur theatre community. I am aware that there are ad-hoc treatments and tests that have been used in the past, but I suspect that they may not be acceptable in today's world, particularly where certification for insurance purposes is required (which would appear to be the issue in the news story referenced). Does anyone have a link to or a source of any relevant technical documents or standards that are relevant and practical (for amateur use) in this situation? Thanks Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart91 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I don't know any of the parties involved, but I suspect there may be more to this than meets the eye. The news story is dated Saturday, curtain up isn't until the following Wednesday. Even if the entire set had to be binned, hiring something in or producing a the barest minimum to the required standards wouldn't have been impossible and surely would have been preferable to a complete cancellation? From the theatre's point of view, it's a dead loss. They're unlikely to pick up any other bookings for the cancelled dates, and if the company feel in any way aggrieved by the process then they're unlikely to be back. I suppose the only reason to cancel earlier is that it's less disruptive to the audience as they have more time to change plans etc. But I'm still struggling to see how nothing could be salvaged from the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jivemaster Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 It's just as likely that the theatre staff has changed from someone looking for "have you fireproofed it?" to someone asking "Can you prove it's fireproof?". It's absolutely certain that the Am Dram company doesn't have access to a BS approved test house and their results for fire testing on the set and all materials used. And a test house report would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. Add to that the limited probability that materials used have any traceability to the original maker and makers testing, all reliance on manufacturer's testing is lost. Fire resistance can be inherent in a material eg Nomex and wool serge, or fire resistance can be imparted by treatment eg Flame Bar, but it needs to be done properly and provably so. Add to that the possibility that some of the materiels may have come from "someone on ebay" or "China" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew C Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Add to that the possibility that some of the materiels may have come from "someone on ebay" or "China"Or is from Jewsons. The same stuff houses are built from all over the country, but some jobs-worth wants a ticket to prove it is "fire proof"... Or, the theatre want shot on an Am-Dram group who no longer fit the "Ethos" of the venue. ie, require a bit of work to put on, not feet up, and the touring show do all the work. Seen this first hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart91 Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Or, the theatre want shot on an Am-Dram group who no longer fit the "Ethos" of the venue. ie, require a bit of work to put on, not feet up, and the touring show do all the work. Seen this first hand. If that's the case, why not just refuse to take the booking in the first place? A refusal may offend, but I imagine they'd be a lot less cross than they are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImagineerTom Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I've worked the pavilion - it's an odd place with some odd practices and management decisions. Whilst I've absolutely no connection with this production at all I would say that what the management say/do and the venue's working practices/methods are somewhat different to those I've experienced in other venues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibbothegreat Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Having been a supplier to that venue, albeit quite some time ago, I can second that - they banned one of our staff from doing deliveries there because the owner/manager 'didn't like the way he looked...' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew C Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 If that's the case, why not just refuse to take the booking in the first place? Because "politics". You tell them to go elsewhere = bad pressThey decide to find somewhere less "difficult" = no fall out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timsabre Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 If that's the case, why not just refuse to take the booking in the first place? Sounds rather like there has been a falling out since the booking was taken... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stagemanagement Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 There are a few issues that have led to this particular situation at The Pavillion; and while some of them are indeed "political" in the sense of people who don't get on butting heads together, The Pavillion are still legally correct in asking for the documentation regarding this particular set - which was a hired set from a supply company and not an Am-Dram self build. The set company in question have failed to move with the times over a number of years now and have failed to keep many of their sets up to required standards; and not just with regard to fire safety, they wouldn't survive an inspection by building control either. I do know that the owner of The Pavillion didn't want a set from this particular company back in his venue, he has made this very clear to many companies; and this was always a case of "when" and not "if" he was going to drop a grenade on the Apollo.As unfortunate for them as that is, their committee have to take some responsibility for this situation and I hope that they have had all the appropriate insurances in place to cover themselves financially for this........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulears Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Let's consider any booking. The theatre has a responsibility to prevent injury or loss of life and damage to their building. Fair enough. Do insurance companies actually ask for 'certificates' or do they simply require assurances that set/costumes whatever are safe? Certificates are a nice way of proving safety, in the same way PAT certificates do the same thing. Let's wonder what would happen if their own crew built a one-off riser using timber from the local merchant, and painted it with paint from B&Q, and dragged out of the store an old gauze to back it with. What would they do? Spray it with flamewar or similar, and satisfy themselves what they'd produced was therefore fire resistant and safe to use. What would they do paperwork wise? Record the date and time, who had applied it, what it was, and probably complete a risk assessment - showing (if I'd done it) the risk as built and then the reduced risk after treatment. I really cannot see an insurance company being unhappy with this. A proper chain of documentation and real people - rather than a sheet of A4 signed by somebody you don't know, with the title SAFETY CERTIFICATE. Faced with losing a show, the management would simply have treated the unknown set themselves, after perhaps clearing this with the scenery owners. It might have cost a 4 man call and be expensive, but faced with the problem, some kind of split on the costing would probably have been agreed. Clearly - the theatre deemed losing the show advantageous and cost effective. I know theatres who simply hate the amateur hires, and do everything in their power to be superficially friendly but work very hard behind the scenes to produce mountains difficult to climb. In an underused venue with too many dark weeks, the amateur business is worth having, but as many nowadays are also charities, venues with charitable policies re: discounts, would rather have a couple of one-nighters that would bring in the same revenue as a week long headache. Losing a semi-resident amateur company can for some venues be a better deal. No doubt more will be revealed later on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibbothegreat Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 Whilst not having personally seen the management accounts, I can say with some degree of confidence and feeling that discounts are highly unlikely to be on offer! The venue is run purely as a commercial venture with, as far as I am aware, no support of any sort from either local authority or central funding. And for all he's not always the easiest person to deal with, I take my hat off to the owner for his sheer bloody-mindedness in keeping it going through some pretty difficult times (among them the injury to one of the Krankies in a beanstalk accident...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jivemaster Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 I'm afraid that I'd guess that NO touring company or artiste tours with all the fully traceable fire safety certificates for all of their tour materiels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadhippy Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 They do like there free publicity,wonder if the set had a red cross anywere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmiller056 Posted November 12, 2015 Author Share Posted November 12, 2015 Hi The thread so far has suggested that the proposed set would have been appropriate many years ago - probably at a time when I learned my scenery building skills in amateur theatre. I appreciate that times have moved on and what is acceptable has changed, but not working regularly in the business I don't know what has changed, which is what I'm wondering about. What I learned is to make the set, apply protexit / flambar or similar. If desperate or poor, a saturated solution of Alum can be used instead, but it alters the finish. Any doubts or arguments were settled by a cigarette lighter in the car park! What have been the major or significant changes over the last 20 years or so for scenery fire performance? Are there any technical standards or codes of practice that are used? The standard contract for the Pavillion Theatre (available on venue website) makes reference to class 1 timber (but no EN/BS standard) and that all set to be treated with fire resistant solution and that's it. I know that for curtains and hanging drapes, It's BS5876 part 2 type B or C, which is well known and understood and the test method can be reasonably replicated if you have to. Alternatively there is EN13772, but this standard is not generally used in the UK. It's the rest of the set that's bothering me...... Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.