FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Fire Safety => Topic started by: ianmoore4102 on July 24, 2008, 06:22:41 PM
-
I have read some of the threads relating to sprinklers in new school buildings and Building Bulletin 100 and there seems to be a lot of information already out there.
I would like to write my dissertation on "Fire protecting the schools of the future: Are sprinklers the answer?" but the object of a dissertation is to cover new ground.
Can you forum members advise me whether there is a gap in the current information that would allow me to carry out some good new research, or has this ground already been covered elsewhere?
Thanks
-
Theres a lot in that question of yours. There is loads of info on the benefits of sprinklers, but implicit in your subject is a query why they have not so far taken off which could lead to an analysis of the reasons and ways to overcome the barriers. Its mainly funding issues but also fears of the possible consequences of vandalism, a lack of knowledge amongst architects, inappropriate prejudice by those senior managers and politicians who hold the purse strings.
The issue is preventing schools burning down with all the consequences that brings to a community, but designers and politicians are allways looking for trade offs in lieu of sprinklers, which to some extent undermines the issue because then the focus is corrupted to finding shortcuts elsewhere, and if the sprinklers are not self financing then they wont go in the spec.
-
I worked as an adviser to a county council that included this issue.There was a policy of fitting sprinklers to new schools /major refurbs after the council carrying out a 'risk assessment', which in most cases ruled them out (better compartmentation, detection etc).The national 'risk assessment' tool that was issued last year was not specific enough,and after running it over various scenarios always came up with the same answer,i.e. fit sprinklers.With limited funds the tool therefore was disregarded by the council.The other issue was that there were many schools (and there was a massive stock of SCOLA type builds that were poorly designed and maintained)that did not conform with the basics of fire safety e.g. protected staircases etc,so it would be difficult to justify diverting the limited funds from an 'essential' to a 'desirable'.I understand that some of the 'new deal for schools money may come with a pre requisite that sprinklers are fitted.
-
We had a new school whose developers were adamant that sprinklers were not to be provided, and as it's outside of the Building Regulations, it couldn't be enforced by Building Control or the FRS. What changed their mind was a statement from the local authority's legal dept, who said that not complying with the spirit of BB100 would affect the Authority's 'Best Value' targets, which could affect future funding. Other PFI schemes have put in sprinklers because of asset protection and the possiblity of penalties if they are unable to provide a school building (ie thru' fire losses) over the lifetime of their contract. Money talks.
-
whose developers were adamant that sprinklers were not to be provided
Money does talk, but why were they so anti-sprinkler? I've never know anyone to be anti-fire alarm, what it is about sprinklers that people are so against?
-
whose developers were adamant that sprinklers were not to be provided
Money does talk, but why were they so anti-sprinkler? I've never know anyone to be anti-fire alarm, what it is about sprinklers that people are so against?
Because they think its a cost over & above the minimum requirements, and don't understand the benefits that it can have, and by the time fire consultants are brought in, it's too late to change their minds. I've had several jobs where we've had issues with compartmentation and ventilation issues, which could have been solved in a more cost effective manner if sprinklers had been considered at an early stage, instead of getting us in when construction has already started.
-
What do insurers say? With ever increasing payouts, they are looking at ways of saving. If sprinklers are an option that will save a build from total loss, (and the cost of install is far less than a new school,) they may with-hold payment. End result, the authority has to find even more finances for repair/rebuild and temp alternative accomodation.
Risk assess point - chances of fire in schools? Getting higher it seems to me...
-
I am looking for anecdotal evidence that I can look into to either confirm or otherwise. one suggestion is that Approved Inspectors are less likely to demand sprinkler systems that Local Authority Building Control.
Does anyone have any experience of this?
-
What do insurers say?
They support sprinklers in schools.
they may with-hold payment.
Unlikely.
Risk assess point - chances of fire in schools? Getting higher it seems to me...
Pretty high, 3 a week go on fire, the worrying trend is the increase towards day time fires.
-
I am looking for anecdotal evidence that I can look into to either confirm or otherwise. one suggestion is that Approved Inspectors are less likely to demand sprinkler systems that Local Authority Building Control.
Does anyone have any experience of this?
Local Authorities or AI's can't demand sprinklers unless its a requirement of the Building Regs, which does not include for property protection. These bodies can only enforce the bits of BB100 which is relevant to the Building Regulations. The property protection bits in the blue boxes, including the sprinkler requirements are to minimise losses and is subject to a cost benefit risk assessment, and are there to satisfy the aims of the Secretary for Schools (or whatever the dept is called this week) and are not enforcable by either AIs or BCO's. The inclusion of sprinklers in schools is over seen by a govt Quango, and could affect the 'Best Value' rating of an LEA.
-
Chris, you say insurers would be unlikely to with-hold payment. I was looking from a point that as sprinklers are heavily supported and recommended, then they may consider that not all reasonably practicable measures were taken by not installing.
Thanks for the figures and opinion.
-
I know what you are thinking, but that is not how insurance companies operate. Let's say someone had a sprinkler system and turned it off. They would still have to pay out unless there was a "warranty" in the policy saying that it had to be on.
Insurers don't have the benefit of making an assessment of how well you controlled your risk afterwards when "decising" to pay out, unless they forced you do do something in the contract pre-fire, then as long as the peril was covered, they will be paying.
If they could do this, they would almost always find some failing in risk management (otherwise there would not have been a fire/theft) with each and every loss.
-
As far as I am aware some local authorities do not insure their school buildings but prefer to save the premium and stand a few knocks now and again (and again)
-
It is true. Self insurance is a sensible thing to do if you are large enough to be able to swallow a few big losses, as any insurance company will calcualte the same risks plus add in some profit.
The disadvantages of this are:
1 - the insurnace market operates in a 5 to 10 year cycle. When insurance is cheap it is called the "soft" market and this occurs when insurnace companies are keen to get business. When it is expensive this is called the "hard" market and this occurs when the new entries to the market have some big losses and decided they don't want ot play any more. In some soft times insurance can cost less than it should even those who self insure might be better off buying underpriced cover in the open market.
2 - insurnace companies employ people like me who go round and tell you to install fire detection or move the bins away, this reduces their losses. If those who self insure don't manage their risks well, they might have more losses than they can afford.
All local authorities used to self insure in a big pot. It was called Municipal Mutual. It went bust becase no matter hw much they put the premiums up by the losses kept growing. Partly due to bad risk management, partly cos they paid out on every claim, even those that were not covered by the policy.
Zurich Municipal took over Municipal Mutual about 13 years ago I think and kept many of the staff, which is why they tend to understand local authorities pretty well and still are the main player in a market that many insurers are still scared off due to the school fire problem.
So in summary, good risk management is the key to insurance.
In recent times some local authorities, Hampshire I think self insure. As does the NHS. It is also common for massive UK companies. Self insurers (captives) tend to be run from tax haven such as Bermuda.
-
What do insurers say? With ever increasing payouts, they are looking at ways of saving. If sprinklers are an option that will save a build from total loss, (and the cost of install is far less than a new school,) they may with-hold payment. End result, the authority has to find even more finances for repair/rebuild and temp alternative accomodation.
Risk assess point - chances of fire in schools? Getting higher it seems to me...
Authority was sef insuring,so no savings to be made there.
Was it Sainsbury's that said many years ago(after a loss in chichester?) that it was more affordable for them to lose one store per year than retro fit sprinklers?
-
Should be reasonably easy to work that one out. It so happens that I do consultancy work for a major UK supermarket. So a store tends to be worth about £20 million, has £2.5 million of stock and £100 million per year of sales.
So assume it takes 2 years between the complete loss of the building and them building a new one and getting the business back, it would cost about £223 million per fire. Work out how many they loose per year and can do the trick.
Reputation damage and injuries and deaths however don't have a value that is so easily measureable, but it'll give you a shot in the dark.
That said, it is kinda of irrelevant, as to get the large compartment sizes that supermaket owners tend to want, sprinklers tend to be necessary to comply with Building Regs. Very few supermarkets I visit don't have sprinklers.
-
Was it Sainsbury's that said many years ago(after a loss in chichester?) that it was more affordable for them to lose one store per year than retro fit sprinklers?
Yes most used to fiercely resist the installation of sprinklers an I think that comment was allegedly made in the early aftermath of a major fire. But not certain if it was sainsburys, tesco or B&Q, all have had similar comments attributed to them.
I suggest we judge their actions not their alleged words- it appears to me that they have now seen the light and most new stores that I see have sprinklers installed- possibly because of the compartment size limitation, but even our new sainsburys in our town- sub 2000sqm - has had sprinklers installed.
-
my memory dims somewhat as this must have been at least 20 years ago.I assume that the comment was valid at that time in respect to the regs back then.I am convinced it was J.S., and think I read it in a 'Fire' journal.
-
It was B&Q and they had to revise thier opinion afetr a public backlash where people stopped going to the stores.
-
Yes, and losing one their warehouse stores in Leicester sharpened their minds as well.
-
Losing buildings was never an issue for them. But they got a lot of grief from insurers and the PR was becoming a problem.
These large organisations replace their buildings at regular intervals - because people like new shops. If one burns down it just jumps the que for a refit/rebuild.
-
I'm not surprised they got grief. Who wants to insure a company that doesn't care too much if their buldings burn down.
-
Its business. Why would you waste money on protecting a building that you were planning to pull down anyway?
-
Because there is usualy an overlap between property protection between occupany safety and property protection.
Because you might be putting neighbouring buildings at risk of fire.
Because burning buildings damage the environment.
To protect reputation damage.
Because when customers are forced to go elsewhere following a fire, many end up accustomed to the alternative and don't ever come back.
And if someone has a business model that means they don't care about protecting their buildings from fire, then they should not expect insurers to be comfortable underwriting that same risk. If you are happy for it to burn - don't insure it.
-
And if we are talking about schools (which the thread should be about) then you must consider
- damage to childrens education
- bussing pupils is problematic and puts a strain on resources on other schools
- schools are also used by comunity groups, scouts, dance classes, police training etc
- impact on staff moral (I've known deputy head teachers to resign as the result of the stress of a major school fire)
- loss of years of unique teaching aids and materials
- increased cost of insurance in future, cost of insurnace policy excess
-
I'm not surprised they got grief. Who wants to insure a company that doesn't care too much if their buldings burn down.
Quite!
We in our brigade area are seeing a vast change in company attitudes partly perhaps because of new fire safety legislation but mainly because of the insurance industry. Is there any particular reason for this Chris?
I'm hearing more and more from RP's telling me how insurance companies are asking for a,b or c to be done.
Their requirements are more from a building protection point of view, but stuff that also impacts on life safety too.
Don't get me wrong I know the Insurance companies have always done this - but it just seems to have got more prominent recently... any I wonder if there is any reason for that.
-
We tend to pick up on life safety stuff anyway even when only doing property work simply because there is an overlap and it would be a missed opportunity not to.
I can think of no particular reason to explain the recent trend. Often insurance programs run in 5 year cycles and surveys are done in local batches and perhaps it is just that X insurer sent an enthusiastic surveyor to the West Midlands?
-
Ahhh that may explain it - thinking about it the premises I had in mind do all belong to one common parent group so that would make sense.
-
Articles:
As part of my literature review I'm looking for magazine articles on school building design & sprinklers.
Can anyone point me in the direction of any related articles that you may be able to recall?
-
And if we are talking about schools (which the thread should be about) then you must consider
- damage to childrens education
- bussing pupils is problematic and puts a strain on resources on other schools
- schools are also used by comunity groups, scouts, dance classes, police training etc
- impact on staff moral (I've known deputy head teachers to resign as the result of the stress of a major school fire)
- loss of years of unique teaching aids and materials
- increased cost of insurance in future, cost of insurnace policy excess
all very correct and true,but the bottom line is that the person who holds the budget for the fire safety improvements sees those as other departments problems,and therefore on a limited budget can't afford to bale them out.There was not enough money to fulfil benchmark ( not in the short term anyway) let alone major investments in building protection.
-
........Joined up government......?