A Kent business has been sentenced in court after failing to implement sufficient fire safety measures to protect its staff and customers.

The Swan Brasserie Limited received fines of £30,000, a victim surcharge of £190, and was ordered to pay costs of £16,215.03 at Medway Magistrates’ Court on 24 July 2024. These penalties were for offences committed in the rear garden building of The Swan, located at 35 Swan Street, West Malling.

During a visit in December 2021, building safety inspectors from Kent Fire and Rescue Service (KFRS) discovered several safety issues at the premises. The company was subsequently summoned to court on 10 July 2024 and pleaded guilty to five breaches of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. These breaches posed serious risks of injury or death in the event of a fire.

The offences included the absence of a fire detection and warning system, failure to conduct a sufficient fire risk assessment, and inadequate emergency lighting and exit routes.

KFRS Area Manager Customer and Building Safety, Suzanna Amberski said:

“We hope the sentence issued to The Swan Brasserie Ltd will serve as a reminder to other businesses across Kent and Medway to consistently adhere to fire safety regulations to avoid prosecution and, most importantly, to keep everyone safe.

"If you oversee a business, you are legally obligated to ensure the safety of everyone who works or visits the premises. This responsibility applies to all without exception.

"We are always ready to provide support and advice to any business in need. However, if you fail to comply with fire safety regulations and endanger lives, we will take legal action when necessary.”

Offences in full:

1. Failure to take general fire safety precautions in the rear garden building at the Premises. In the area of the ground floor, there were objects such as power cables and combustible items located in the means of escape and created a risk of the spread of fire, contrary to Article 8 of the Order

2. Failure to carry out a suitable and sufficient Fire Risk Assessment, contrary to Article 9 of the Order

3. Failure to ensure the Premises were equipped with appropriate fire detection equipment and alarms, contrary to Article 13 of the Order

4. Failure to ensure that, in the event of fire, it would be possible to evacuate the Premises as quickly and safely as possible. The escape route from the first floor of the rear garden building was complex, via a single staircase and required navigation through several rooms to reach the marquee. If there had been a fire in any number of points on the route, it would have made that single means of escape untenable; contrary to Article 14 (2) (b) of the Order

5. Failure to ensure that emergency routes and exits were equipped with emergency lighting, contrary to Article 14 (2)(h) of the Order.