FireNet Community

FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: lyledunn on July 05, 2019, 09:10:57 AM

Title: Sprinklers no longer needed
Post by: lyledunn on July 05, 2019, 09:10:57 AM
My query relates to a small, landlocked pub in a city centre location. Bar on ground with occupancy of 60, sitting area on first for 30 and toilets and kitchen on second. The footprint is tiny but the travel distance from the second floor to the only exit at the front of the premises is around 38m with the route via the first floor lounge, accommodation stair and ground floor bar. Sprinklers were fitted and along with a L2 fire alarm and a fire engineers report BC accepted the solution. We have now acquired the premises next door and knocked through at first floor level. This provides us with an alternative escape route for the first and second floor. The route from second still passes through the tiny first floor lounge but we can get access to a protected stair within required travel distance. A fresh look at the new setup would definitely not require sprinkler provision. However, BC are saying that the sprinklers must remain as any new works should not diminish existing fire safety provision. In fact, debate is taking place as to whether the sprinkler provision should be extended to the additional area.
The fire engineer agrees with BC for the same reason. A similar alteration just completed in the same block has been been passed by the same BC officer but they didn?t have a sprinkler system to begin with.
Title: Re: Sprinklers no longer needed
Post by: Messy on July 05, 2019, 01:35:42 PM
That is bloody ridiculous and sounds like total jobsworths in action.

Where is the "any new works should not diminish existing fire safety provision" from as surely its been misinterpreted?
Title: Re: Sprinklers no longer needed
Post by: AnthonyB on July 05, 2019, 07:36:06 PM
You shouldn't reduce existing precautions, but you aren't - you are providing an equivalent level of safety via lesser TD's and a second route that is protected. Surely as long as you are achieving the functional aims of the regulations the methodology used, unless flawed, doesn't matter, it's meant to be non prescriptive.
Title: Re: Sprinklers no longer needed
Post by: John Webb on July 06, 2019, 02:07:28 PM
Is there any sense in retaining sprinklers for property protection at all? Or is the fire alarm system linked to the outside world?
(And out of great curiosity, what sprinkler heads are fitted?)
Title: Re: Sprinklers no longer needed
Post by: lyledunn on July 09, 2019, 08:07:03 AM
Not sure with respect to the sprinkler heads John, what are you thinking?
Title: Re: Sprinklers no longer needed
Post by: John Webb on July 09, 2019, 04:28:16 PM
I wondered in part how old the sprinkler system is, and if fast-response sprinklers were fitted to make it a life-safety system as part of the BC acceptance.