FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Operational => Topic started by: ian gough on August 20, 2006, 09:04:00 AM
-
I'm becoming increasingly suspicious that Fire Authorities are not demanding suitable water supplies on new developments - probably because they might have to pay for them. Am I alone in this? I'd be interested to hear other views.
-
Or perhaps the focus has shifted and staff resources are no longer available to do this?
I was working on a development planning three large warehouses on one site in early June and wrote to the brigade involved because I had concerns- not received an acknowledgement or reply.
In this case theres another snag- the water infrastructure will not support a ring main -they can put hydrants in but the supply infrastructure will not deliver more than 30 litres per second maximum. So will just about scrape one BS750 hydrant. We will put in a string of hydrants acoss the site but theres no point worring about proximity to the buildings.
We are putting in a static tank instead central to the site and the brigade wll have some hose running to do.
-
That's interesting. My next question is: who is or should pay for the static tank?
-
The developer. Theres no hassle- just put an extra tank in next to the sprinkler tanks.
The cost of delaying the whole project whilst we faff about arguing about who pays for what would be huge compared to the cost of the tank.
I know where you are coming from Ian but my personal view is that if I create a risk its my responsibility to properly manage that risk. Just like H&S at work. Why should the fire authority pay for the infrastructure to deliver water supplies for my building?
The water supplies were fine till I plonked my building there. Once I create the infrastructure it may then become a joint responsibility to maintain it in operational state- mine under the new FSO 2005, theirs under the fire and rescue services Act.
Now it would clearly be their responsibiliy to provide sufficient fire fighting resources- appliances and crews- to deal with fires in my building. That is their direct responsibility and under their sole control. And once the risk is on site that is exactly what I will pay business rates for.
-
Ok so - I pay business rates, everybody else gets their firefighting supply paid for by the FA. The FA gets a big chunk of cash for this very purpose. If I provide my own supply do I get a rebate?
Proposed changes to building regs may help with this.
-
I see your point Kurnal; however Wee Brian has another very good one too.
I'm afraid I'm coming at this from s38 of the Fire & Rescue Services Act 2004, because: the Fire Authority have a statutory duty to 'take all reasonable measures for securing that an adequate supply of water will be available for the authority's use in the event of fire.' It seems that this is not always happening.
-
But surely "Taking all reasonable measures for securing" does not mean the Fire Authority pays for the infrastructure as I think Wee Brian is implying?
Surely it means that they make all possible representations at the planning stage to ensure that the developer makes provision for the infrastructure and then perhaps paying for a few hydrant outlets on the installed main?
But I recognise that Authorities may not have their eye on the ball at present and may not be making these representations- or even showing an interest as my earlier post indicated.
-
Have a look at the Water Industry Act 1991 in particular section 147 which deals with charging for the supply of water for fire fighting purposes. There it talks about not charging for a) water taken for extinguishing fires or other emergency purposes. b) for testing apparatus or equipment or training. and c) the availability of water for any purpose mentioned in a and b.
It seems to me that although the Fire Authority has to pay for the hydrants it does not have to pay for the infrastructure, particularly as the Fire Services Act says that the FRA may enter into an agreement with the water authority to secure an adequate supply of water and that the Water Authority must enter into an agreement reasonably proposed by the FRA.
Hence it falls back on the FRA to decide if there is an adequate supply of water and the WA to supply it.
It would appear that the FRA has to decide ifthe water supply is adequate and proceed from there.
-
Mike, sorry but I miss your point re Water Industry Act; I'm quite aware that charges for water used for firefighting cannot be made.
However, can you supply me with more evidence to back up your asertion that.."although the fire authority has to pay for the hydrants it does not have to pay for the infrastucture.."
Or is your point really: if the fireauthority ask for more water than [planners] propose - the water authority have to provide it?
-
This is something I had to dig into a while ago. The FA decides what it needs and then has to pay for it. I know its weird but there you are.
Look at the average FA budget and you will see a big chunk there for water.
-
Is there any case law to back this up Wee Brian?
In my past life I always pushed this onto the developers - but never as far as the courts. We certainly did not have the cash for more than a few new hydrants each year- and certainly not any infrastructure. IIRC I think the budget was around 15k.
In the recent case I quoted in earlier posts we are on a hiding to nothing. The water company say they cannot put the infrastructure in place - the supply is oversubscribed and the town in question has already been threatened with cuts in supply during July and has had bowsers on the streets. And this is middle England. And I guess this will be the case elsewhere as more development takes place drawing on a supply system designed in the 1960s. When did you last hear of a new reservoir being built?
-
Getting interesting eh folks?
-
When did you last hear of a new reservoir being built?
May:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4962914.stm
In January:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4207473.stm
Prior to that April 2004:
Jan 2004:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/3401211.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/guernsey/3623943.stm
There was talk of 7 more in 2003:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3215537.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3199735.stm
THere are many more.
-
I think we have all got developers to provide hydrants in the past using the "bluff and persuasion Act 0f 19 frozen to death"
-
The point about the Water Industries Act, as I read it, is that under this section the Water Authorities cannot charge for making water available for firefighting purposes. The Fire Services Act says that the FRA may enter into an agreement with the WA but the WA must enter into the agreement with the FRA.
So if the FRA has entered in an agreement with the WA to provide an adequate supply of water for firefighting the WA has to provide it (an adequate supply) and cannot charge for making the water (an adequate supply)available for fire fighting purposes.
So if the FRA decides that an adequate supply is not available it seems to me that the responsibility falls onto the WA.
-
Whilst not ever having any personal experience of this (always had a canal handy in the West Mids) my opinion concurs with Wee B's; however, Mike makes an interesting point too.
The reason I asked for comment here is because I've had an enquiry of similar circumstances to Kurnal's - except in my case, a fire spread from the 'new risk' damaging valuable property and the fire authority blames "lack of water" for failing to stop the spread. Early indications reveal a possible lack of ever asking for sufficient water supplies at Planning - but it's early days yet and this cannot be confirmed.
Now throw 'Integrated Risk Management' into the pot with reduced attendances and even non attendance for AFAs and a very interesting situation begins to emerge.
-
Ian
I submitted my first post with a rather negative view based on recent experience.
But its not all bad and heres another experience I have had, albeit about 3 years ago,
With the advent of community fire risk management and all the liason with local interest groups that has grown from this, perhaps the fire brigades are closer to their communities than before and more aware of the problems of unemployment and deprivation, and how the possible redevelopment of brownfield sites can regenerate the community, bringing with it an improvement in the standard of living and a consequent reduction in fire deaths and injuries.
And that local fire service is more likely to jump through hoops to bring that development to their community, mindful that there are plenty of other sites competing for consideration by the developer. So when the water company shake their heads and say no theres no chance of new mains for 10 years or more for technical or logistical reasons, rather than lose the development they may explore other solutions. Time being of the essence compromise becomes necessary. But even this compromise depends on somebody else - not the fire brigade- footing the bill!
But you are exactly right and I know of a number of former coal field sites turned into industrial estates with no water supplies at all- on occasion with disastrous consequences. I remember one scheme where at planning stage the water for firefighting was provided using the old pit lagoons. Then because of H&S concerns the lagoons were drained but nobody told the brigade. Then a large plastics recycling firm on site had a fire which led to total burn out.
Chris
I obviously watch the wrong news channel. Ive never understood why the water doesn't flow down to the South from the north by itself?
-
I have read the news links Chris kindly provided. Heres an extract:
"The seven reservoirs would only be built if permission was granted from the government and the Environment Agency.
But Baroness Young, Environment Agency chief executive, said: "The point we are making in being pretty resistant to reservoirs is that most companies that put forward proposals for reservoirs are not thinking about how they can reduce customers' demand and manage their leakage effectively as a first step.""
Is this not fiddling while Rome burns?
Can you imagine the Agency opposing new power stations until the generating companies consider how they can persuade consumers to switch the telly off properly or turn off lights? Or refusing the Oil Companies permission to build a new refinery until they can show what they are doing to persuade consumers to cut out unnecessary journeys and use smaller cars?
Who is going to suffer as a result of all this prevarication- only the public I suppose. And the water companies are a real piggy in the middle between Two Jags pushing new developments and the Baroness trying to hold it back.
Two government departments each pushing the official government polices both of which oppose each other with the privatised water companies the whipping boy in the middle. I guess thats why I have to wait at least 10 years for my new fire hydrants in my patch.
-
Just to add spice to the mix. The FRA has a duty under the FRS Act to take all reasonable measures to secure an adequate supply of water. If it fails in that duty, (as in Ian's case?) and damage results then the FRA could be seen to be negligent and therefore liable.
The arguement being that had adequate water supplies been available then the fire could have been prevented from spreading to adjoining properties and / or the damage would not have been so bad.
Just waiting for a test case?
-
Your comments give much food for thought. Thanks.