FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: Midland Retty on March 17, 2008, 01:22:18 PM
-
Caravan Parks are becoming my staple diet along with flats and HMOs at the moment.
I'm familiar with the content of the Model Standards for Park Homes document and the parts of it
which talk about the Fire Authority enforcing various issues under the RRFSO.
My query is regarding trees. The model standards say that the Fire Authority should enforce upon "Fire Hazards" such as long grass and vegetation found. Does anyone feel this would include trees?
And if so what species / varieties of trees (other than connifers) are readily combustible ( this may seem like a silly question I know)
or.... Can anyone sign post me to any research into the flammability of trees and large vegetation?
Many thanks as always
-
Bacon Trees can be dangerous....no sorry Retty not Bacon Trees I mean't Hambushes!
-
*sighs*
-
Sorry Retty couldn't resist it old boy.
-
less of the 'old' thank you ...
Anymore thoughts or comments on this from anyone?
-
Is this a wind up Midland? It'll be Towering Allotments next.
Dead trees burn like the clappers of course as does dried out dead vegetation. But they make buildings out of dead trees so it cant be that bad. Healthy living green trees take some igniting. Ask any boy scout.
-
No Uncle Kurnal I assure you its not a wind up
But i do like the idea of "Towering Allotments"... with say Percy Thrower or Alan Titchmarsh as the hero of the story desperately trying to save some prize trunips or melons from the fearsome blaze or maybe a hibernating hedgehog...???
No the reason i enquired is that whilst we all know that connifers can go like the clappers are there any other types of trees which are as readily ignitable.
For example there is a type of palm tree very close to a mobile park home and the council are concerned it could be easily ignited and thus threaten the park home. It then threw up arguments about other types of trees which have taken up every nook and cranny of the park site.
I said it would take a huge ignition source to start trees to burn (bark normally chars and protects fresh wood underneath) but you know what its like I just need facts and figures to back up my statement. I doubt there are any but I thought I'd ask.
I feel a bit silly now!
-
No dont feel silly Midland. Its only right to use the forum cos its probably the best source of both useful and useless information. I am sure Dr Wiz will find you a room at his home for the bewildered.
Now for dried out conifers- have you seen the NIST video of the christmas tree- ignition to room flashover in 30 seconds or thereabouts?
-
conifers are a bit lively when they have dried out a bit. This isnt very scientific though.
-
No real evidence but look at the leaves. Waxy leaves tend to burn better than the more flesh type. Watch out for gorse and moorland types of plants they tend to have a life cycle that allows for fires to burn off their outer leaves and then grow back.
Softwoods such as pine etc. tend to exude resin which also burns quite well. Hardwoods tend to be fairly difficult to ignite but they drop all their dead leaves once a year.
You can't win!
-
Thanks folks
Im reliably informed that as a general rule "evergreen" trees are more readily combustible than trees which shed their leaves in autumn!
-
try Forest Enterprise (I think that's the new name for the Forestry Commission). They certainly did trials on the fire propagation in standing trees and examined fire retarding foam sprays for feorect fire fighting. Their research might have revealing insights into the topic.
-
MR. I think a risk assessment would determine that a single or few trees would not be considered "Significant". Trees by their thousands can be during the dry season but, unless hit by lightning, solitary trees don't usually go on fire. Trees can significantly contribute to a fire because of their fuel potential eg. in the case of a forest fire, but as to being considered a fire risk, in your situation? I doubt it.
I can't realy see any FSO wanting trees in a Caravan Park cleared away because they could a fire risk. Unless, that is, somebody knows different.
-
MR. I think a risk assessment would determine that a single or few trees would not be considered "Significant". Trees by their thousands can be during the dry season but, unless hit by lightning, solitary trees don't usually go on fire. Trees can significantly contribute to a fire because of their fuel potential eg. in the case of a forest fire, but as to being considered a fire risk, in your situation? I doubt it.
I can't realy see any FSO wanting trees in a Caravan Park cleared away because they could a fire risk. Unless, that is, somebody knows different.
I'd be concerned by the siting of connifers near caravans. You should appreciate their potential for fire spread and the heat they can give off. if you don't you aren't qualified to do risk assessment. The caravans themselves can be lost to fire very quickly so I do see the need for FSO to be vigilant in this respect. 4 years ago my crew lost a park home for that very reason during a hot summer. It just went up so quickly nothing we could do.Tinder dry grass had caught fire and spread to a bank of connifers and gorse and quickly jumped to a caravan. Resdients had erected fencing between caravans and that soon went up to. A lot of residents had got of LPG gas bullits installed. So yes I do think trees are a concern in terms of their contibution to fire spread. But it does depend on the type of tree and what else is around the park.
-
OK, whatever you think Cleveland. Thought it might be a bit difficult to site comnifers near caravans. Hell of a lot of digging.
Question was about Fire Hazard and not Fire Spread. I did allude to Fire Spread, I think? Different things ain't they?
-
The point is that alot of the more established park home sites haven't been inspected since first registration. As such the residents planted small decorative trees to personalise their living space which have now grown to be quite big.
A number of site owners have let caravans be located very close to trees. Are tree's an immediate fire hazard? Ordinarily no, but as so many have you have pointed out it only takes a good spell of hot weather and connifers can ignite. Also some tress release resin or sap which is combustible and again can ignite on hot days.
The likelyhood of them igniting is low but the consequences if they are positioned next to a park home is high so they do need to be considered.
Nearlythere of course fire spread is an issue, you dont want a fire which has started elsewhere in the park to be able to travel round the site quickly and threaten the park homes.Clevelandfire mentions that alot of residents have put up wooden fencing around their homes. Some have even put up large wooden pagodas, car ports and such like. Now add all that to the mix , think about the potential for fire spread, fire loading etc and you have to look at these things more closely.
-
I found an america site on the internet that showes English Hawthorne being used as a fire break in areas likely to suffer from bushfires etc.
www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=145559
Admittedly this might not be any help for your application but still :/
-
I found an america site on the internet that showes English Hawthorne being used as a fire break in areas likely to suffer from bushfires etc.
www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=145559
Admittedly this might not be any help for your application but still :/
Actually no thats really handy to know - Cheers Spud
-
Happen to catch sight of this comment yesterday in the FPA Journal 'Fire Prevention ' issue 295, published December 1996. It was a report on a seminar held at the Fire Research Station.
At the end of the article it said (in connection with possible future research) that "....one fire brigade officer suggested that research is needed into the effects of living trees in permanent caravan parks... there have been a few cases recently in which a fire in one caravan was spread to neighbouring ones via the trees."
This was only six months before I left FRS, so I do not know if this was followed up in any way.
-
The point is that alot of the more established park home sites haven't been inspected since first registration. As such the residents planted small decorative trees to personalise their living space which have now grown to be quite big.
A number of site owners have let caravans be located very close to trees. Are tree's an immediate fire hazard? Ordinarily no, but as so many have you have pointed out it only takes a good spell of hot weather and connifers can ignite. Also some tress release resin or sap which is combustible and again can ignite on hot days.
The likelyhood of them igniting is low but the consequences if they are positioned next to a park home is high so they do need to be considered.
Nearlythere of course fire spread is an issue, you dont want a fire which has started elsewhere in the park to be able to travel round the site quickly and threaten the park homes.Clevelandfire mentions that alot of residents have put up wooden fencing around their homes. Some have even put up large wooden pagodas, car ports and such like. Now add all that to the mix , think about the potential for fire spread, fire loading etc and you have to look at these things more closely.
Yes, this is the possiblilty but is it significant for the purposes of a RA?
Think about all the wooden panel fences surrounding hundreds of thousands of houses in the country. Is a public footpath in a housing development a common area which should be risk assessed and should home owners be made to take all wooden fences down where they could be a combustible link between properties.
Are we not getting carried away a little and forgetting words like likelihood, probability, possibility, significant, chance, potential, reduce, tolerable etc? Otherwise some RAers could have us living in concrete jungles
-
The point is that alot of the more established park home sites haven't been inspected since first registration. As such the residents planted small decorative trees to personalise their living space which have now grown to be quite big.
A number of site owners have let caravans be located very close to trees. Are tree's an immediate fire hazard? Ordinarily no, but as so many have you have pointed out it only takes a good spell of hot weather and connifers can ignite. Also some tress release resin or sap which is combustible and again can ignite on hot days.
The likelyhood of them igniting is low but the consequences if they are positioned next to a park home is high so they do need to be considered.
Nearlythere of course fire spread is an issue, you dont want a fire which has started elsewhere in the park to be able to travel round the site quickly and threaten the park homes.Clevelandfire mentions that alot of residents have put up wooden fencing around their homes. Some have even put up large wooden pagodas, car ports and such like. Now add all that to the mix , think about the potential for fire spread, fire loading etc and you have to look at these things more closely.
Yes, this is the possiblilty but is it significant for the purposes of a RA?
Think about all the wooden panel fences surrounding hundreds of thousands of houses in the country. Is a public footpath in a housing development a common area which should be risk assessed and should home owners be made to take all wooden fences down where they could be a combustible link between properties.
Are we not getting carried away a little and forgetting words like likelihood, probability, possibility, significant, chance, potential, reduce, tolerable etc? Otherwise some RAers could have us living in concrete jungles
Private houses /single domestic dwellings aren't covered by the order plus park homes are considerably more combustible than your average house.
So yes it does need to be taken account of in the RA
Whether or not it would form part of a significant finding in the assessment depends on numerous factors.im not saying the vegetation has to be moved necessarily, and thats why I submitted this post in the first place, I wanted to gather opinion so that in turn I wouldn't be overburdensome in my requirements of the landlord.
Everyone here has agreed connifers are readily ignitable. Imagine if one were to catch fire close to a park home.
BRE have done tests on this and the fire rapidly spread between tree and park home within minutes. From the radiated heat neighbouring park homes began to catch too.
So how is that not significant Nearlythere?
-
The point is that alot of the more established park home sites haven't been inspected since first registration. As such the residents planted small decorative trees to personalise their living space which have now grown to be quite big.
A number of site owners have let caravans be located very close to trees. Are tree's an immediate fire hazard? Ordinarily no, but as so many have you have pointed out it only takes a good spell of hot weather and connifers can ignite. Also some tress release resin or sap which is combustible and again can ignite on hot days.
The likelyhood of them igniting is low but the consequences if they are positioned next to a park home is high so they do need to be considered.
Nearlythere of course fire spread is an issue, you dont want a fire which has started elsewhere in the park to be able to travel round the site quickly and threaten the park homes.Clevelandfire mentions that alot of residents have put up wooden fencing around their homes. Some have even put up large wooden pagodas, car ports and such like. Now add all that to the mix , think about the potential for fire spread, fire loading etc and you have to look at these things more closely.
Yes, this is the possiblilty but is it significant for the purposes of a RA?
Think about all the wooden panel fences surrounding hundreds of thousands of houses in the country. Is a public footpath in a housing development a common area which should be risk assessed and should home owners be made to take all wooden fences down where they could be a combustible link between properties.
Are we not getting carried away a little and forgetting words like likelihood, probability, possibility, significant, chance, potential, reduce, tolerable etc? Otherwise some RAers could have us living in concrete jungles
Private houses /single domestic dwellings aren't covered by the order plus park homes are considerably more combustible than your average house.
So yes it does need to be taken account of in the RA
Whether or not it would form part of a significant finding in the assessment depends on numerous factors.im not saying the vegetation has to be moved necessarily, and thats why I submitted this post in the first place, I wanted to gather opinion so that in turn I wouldn't be overburdensome in my requirements of the landlord.
Everyone here has agreed connifers are readily ignitable. Imagine if one were to catch fire close to a park home.
BRE have done tests on this and the fire rapidly spread between tree and park home within minutes. From the radiated heat neighbouring park homes began to catch too.
So how is that not significant Nearlythere?
So what is the control measure? Chop down the trees, move the home along with all the attached services or tolerate it?
You say "Are tree's an immediate fire hazard? Ordinarily no, but as so many have you have pointed out it only takes a good spell of hot weather and connifers can ignite"
Trees are not the thing that one can move to more open ground when the weather is fine and dry for them to be moved back during the rainy season. So therefore trees are a fire hazard and there is no "Ordinarily no" situation.
What about an office building in the middle of a residential terrace? Would an attached hedge or a panel fence, regardless as to who it belonged to, constitute a Fire Hazard? What about a single nearby conifer tree in the rear garden of the office building?
-
What about an office building in the middle of a residential terrace? Would an attached hedge or a panel fence, regardless as to who it belonged to, constitute a Fire Hazard? What about a single nearby conifer tree in the rear garden of the office building?
Hi Nearlythere
Not sure I follow your logic
As I mentioned previously park homes are more combustible than an ordinary house or office block so Im not sure where you are coming from with that argument.
Never come across an office building in the middle of a row of terraced houses either. Sounds a bit bizzare. But one presumes there would be adequate Fire separation if built to building regs rather like the countless other commercial and residential properties which are next door to one another across the land!
"Are trees a fire hazard ordinarily no" was referring to the fact that most trees dont easily catch fire. But again we discussed connifers and most posters agreed they can ignite pretty easily. So take the connifer which is readily ignitable and whack it next to a park home which again is combustible would you not have concerns?
As you already say you cant move trees to suit the weather, so really you have answered your own question in so much that if you consider the tree to be a risk you would have it removed /chopped down.
Would i move the park home - of course not !
If you read my original post I asked a perfectly reasonable question "are there any types of tree which are easily ignitable"
-
Are we missing an opportunity to make a risk assessment and merely stating there is a risk and the conifer should go? Is it a reasonably practicable precaution to require this. Balancing the quantum of risk against the cost, effort and energy to control the limited probability of a possible significant consequence doesn't to my mind justify the recommendation to remove the trees. What is going to ignite the tree? Lack of ignition source is another part of does the overall risk justify action.
I do enjoy being argumentative after Friday lunch.
-
Firstly Martin
Please dont use big words in short succession that I dont understand :D.
Secondly I dont disagree with you BUT there are certain things we need to be clear on.
The Caravan Park Model Standards states that combustible items should not be permitted in between caravans and that fire hazards should be assessed and where necessary removed.
All I've done is ask the question about the ignitability of trees, how they may aid fire spread, and how combustible they are. You will find also that keeping vegetation / trees short is a stipulation of the site license conditions.
So why is that?
The replies Ive got back and some external sources confirm that most trees arent readily ignitable, and won't pose any significant risk ORDINARILY.
However from the info I have got evergreen trees (connifers) is a different matter
Spells of hot weather can dry out connifers and they can then ignite.
Im not saying they are necessarily a problem or otherwise. But if you read my threads again you will see where Im coming from and why I asked the question.
I SAY AGAIN FOR THE FINAL TIME PARK HOMES AREN'T LIKE YOUR STANDARD BRICK CONTRUCTED HOUSES!
Myself and me good old buddy Nearlythere got on to the subject of connifers and I said based on the information I gathered they may be a risk that needs considering.
BRE Tests confirm connifers are easily ignitable and allow swift fire spread
Park Homes are vulnerable and combustible
So we are not even talking about the tree spontaneously combusting, or someone deliberately igniting them, we are looking at the bigger picture.
Such as:-
1) Arson
2) Fire elsewhere in the park ignited by an unspecified means being able to spread rapidly because of vegetation etc
3) People lighting BBQs close to tinder dry vegetation
4) Vulnerability of Park Home because of the construction
5) Nearby ignition sources (faulty site electrics)
The list goes on and on
I haven't even had lunch yet
-
Firstly Martin
Please dont use big words in short succession that I dont understand :D.
Secondly I dont disagree with you BUT there are certain things we need to be clear on.
The Caravan Park Model Standards states that combustible items should not be permitted in between caravans and that fire hazards should be assessed and where necessary removed.
All I've done is ask the question about the ignitability of trees, how they may aid fire spread, and how combustible they are. You will find also that keeping vegetation / trees short is a stipulation of the site license conditions.
So why is that?
The replies Ive got back and some external sources confirm that most trees arent readily ignitable, and won't pose any significant risk ORDINARILY.
However from the info I have got evergreen trees (connifers) is a different matter
Spells of hot weather can dry out connifers and they can then ignite.
Im not saying they are necessarily a problem or otherwise. But if you read my threads again you will see where Im coming from and why I asked the question.
I SAY AGAIN FOR THE FINAL TIME PARK HOMES AREN'T LIKE YOUR STANDARD BRICK CONTRUCTED HOUSES!
Myself and me good old buddy Nearlythere got on to the subject of connifers and I said based on the information I gathered they may be a risk that needs considering.
BRE Tests confirm connifers are easily ignitable and allow swift fire spread
Park Homes are vulnerable and combustible
So we are not even talking about the tree spontaneously combusting, or someone deliberately igniting them, we are looking at the bigger picture.
Such as:-
1) Arson
2) Fire elsewhere in the park ignited by an unspecified means being able to spread rapidly because of vegetation etc
3) People lighting BBQs close to tinder dry vegetation
4) Vulnerability of Park Home because of the construction
5) Nearby ignition sources (faulty site electrics)
The list goes on and on
I haven't even had lunch yet
Bit late for lunch now MR.
Have a liguid evening meal instead. Cheers.
-
Thats the best thing you have suggested all day
Cheers - To your health NT
-
I certainly don't dispute that living in a combustible dwelling in a tinder dry wooded area is hazardous (although at some points during this thread I was getting flashbacks to the 'hazards of doormats in corridors thread')- recall the vivid images of raging forest fires in California, Australia etc and the rapid consummation of the timber houses therein.
However IMHO those people have put themselves in danger in much the same way as someone who chooses to live at the foot of a sleeping volcano or who buys a house in an area prone to flooding.
It is far more reasonable to move the caravans than to move/cut down the trees.
-
Sorry to join in but i just want to mention something.
If the main worry is connifers and the drying out factor what about getting the site to create an automatic watering system fed from rainwater butts? This would stop either the caravans or the trees from having to being moved or chopped down and you would be able to plant some marsh plants in around them, Lobelia cardinalis Queen Victoria or spearwort maybe
-
It is far more reasonable to move the caravans than to move/cut down the trees.
Whilst I dont disagree we are talking about an established site now where plots have been in place for over 18 years, convincing the residents to move their home for the sake of a tree would be difficult, and besides I think you have misunderstood my post.
Can I make it clear please that we are only talking about connifers which encroach into the 6m spacing allowed between caravans /park homes etc.
I do not suggest for one moment that a copse or wooded area that borders onto the park home site for example should be cleared or removed, it is just the mainly ornamental connifers residents have planted in the gardens between homes which in some cases are now in excess of 14ft high and have grown in girth to the point where they actuall touch the park homes.
Posters please be aware at no time have I suggested the removal of trees in my original post i merely asked if certain types of trees or shrubs posed a hazard.
From the BRE reports, and your comments connifers are perhaps the most readily ignitable and the Model Standards themselves states that nothing combustible should be allowed in between park homes.
-
It is far more reasonable to move the caravans than to move/cut down the trees.
Whilst I dont disagree we are talking about an established site now where plots have been in place for over 18 years, convincing the residents to move their home for the sake of a tree would be difficult, and besides I think you have misunderstood my post.
Can I make it clear please that we are only talking about connifers which encroach into the 6m spacing allowed between caravans /park homes etc.
I do not suggest for one moment that a copse or wooded area that borders onto the park home site for example should be cleared or removed, it is just the mainly ornamental connifers residents have planted in the gardens between homes which in some cases are now in excess of 14ft high and have grown in girth to the point where they actuall touch the park homes.
Posters please be aware at no time have I suggested the removal of trees in my original post i merely asked if certain types of trees or shrubs posed a hazard.
From the BRE reports, and your comments connifers are perhaps the most readily ignitable and the Model Standards themselves states that nothing combustible should be allowed in between park homes.
MR, can I respectfully ask as to what you would do if you considered a tree or shrub a hazard? Would one or two or three not be a tolerable hazard?
I know I am straying a little but would vehicles not be more of a hazard than vegetation? People like their cars next to their house.
-
It is far more reasonable to move the caravans than to move/cut down the trees.
Whilst I dont disagree we are talking about an established site now where plots have been in place for over 18 years, convincing the residents to move their home for the sake of a tree would be difficult, and besides I think you have misunderstood my post.
Can I make it clear please that we are only talking about connifers which encroach into the 6m spacing allowed between caravans /park homes etc.
I do not suggest for one moment that a copse or wooded area that borders onto the park home site for example should be cleared or removed, it is just the mainly ornamental connifers residents have planted in the gardens between homes which in some cases are now in excess of 14ft high and have grown in girth to the point where they actuall touch the park homes.
Posters please be aware at no time have I suggested the removal of trees in my original post i merely asked if certain types of trees or shrubs posed a hazard.
From the BRE reports, and your comments connifers are perhaps the most readily ignitable and the Model Standards themselves states that nothing combustible should be allowed in between park homes.
MR, can I respectfully ask as to what you would do if you considered a tree or shrub a hazard? Would one or two or three not be a tolerable hazard?
I know I am straying a little but would vehicles not be more of a hazard than vegetation? People like their cars next to their house.
Hi NT
Here's my logic:-
I was asked by a council officer and concerned residents whether trees posed a significant fire hazard. We scrutinised the Model Standards guidance for park homes which suggest they might be.
To try and establish why the model standards said this I posted this thread on firenet.
Firstly I looked at what type of trees or bushes can easily catch fire /aid fire spread / assist in rapid development etc if any.
BRE / experience / Firenet members tell me that connfiers are probably the most easily ignitable and combustible
Armed with that guidance Ill now look at the size, density of connifer in particular near the park homes
Strictly speaking according to the model standards no fire hazzard should exist within 6 metre sep zone between park homes, but common sense tells me that SOMETHING LIKE a small 1 foot high connifer wont cause a problem.
My intrest is in the larger, taller connfiers, or connifer hedges where there is a long length of them in one area.
Im not trying to be onourous, but the guidance is clear, research from BRE is clear, majority of members opinions on here are clear and Ive been asked a question by concerned residents and a council enforcement officer and I want to give them accurate advice as this might get legal.
The issue of cars is a seperate and I dont want to go into that at the moment, Ive enough going on with trees for now.
I think Ive explained myself enough, could I ask anyone who wants to make comment to read all posts to understand what Ive been trying to find, and also read some of the links a lot of members have kindly sent me regarding this subject.
At the end of the day if those of you dont feel its important than thats fair enough im not here to change your mind. But I am trying to establish why the model standards points toward not wanting trees too close to caravans (it also refers to the BRE reports to back up that statement).
Thanks for everyone who has kindly contributed I wont be replying to any further posts on this matter now I think its run its course.
-
Armed with that guidance Ill now look at the size, density of connifer in particular near the park homes
Strictly speaking according to the model standards no fire hazzard should exist within 6 metre sep zone between park homes, but common sense tells me that SOMETHING LIKE a small 1 foot high connifer wont cause a problem.
My intrest is in the larger, taller connfiers, or connifer hedges where there is a long length of them in one area.
Are you interested in any research information on heat output from conifer fires? Otherwise your judgement on size or density will be rather subjective. Theres quite a lot of info on wildfires and research done in Australia and Western America into this I believe.
-
Poor Retty. Seems like everyone is taking the mick out of you for asking a simple question, but I think you are correct in looking into this subject further. Kurnal I think common sense will tell you that a large fir tree will give off sufficient heat to threaten a nearby park home if its close enough.You are ex ops and you will undoubtedly have tackled grass, scrubland fires and connifer rows in your time - theyre bloomin hot! I doubt theres a need to go too technical into the subject.
I agree fir trees need to be assessed if theyre within the 6 metre spacing to park homes. I have seen the damage they can do first hand (i talked about a fire I attended at a caravan park earlier on in this thread) Personally I feel that anyone who doesnt atleast consider the proximity of evergreens or large expanses of flammable foliage close enough to these types of structures isnt competent at undertaking fire risk assessments. Nearlythere's argument that trees are allowed in someones back garden of their house so whats the problem is a total non starter. Most houses are brick built for goodness sake and besides the Fire Authority cant enforce standards in single domestic dwellings can they.
-
New model standard now published
www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/modelstandardsparkhomes
-
Thanks for that Dinnertime Dave