precautions to be put inplace for a defective sprinkler systems

[alfi]

Folks,

If an EMPTY building is sprinkler protected, but has had a major mechanical failure so will be out of action for a while, what extra precauations would you recommend are put inplace?, it is already empty and has weekly insurance inspections so not stock or materals kept on site, and has AFDthat is active (not redcare), I have informed the insurance company to ask if they require any additonal controls but was wondering if any one has had experience of this happening

Ta

[Phoenix]

If the property is empty then the only means of escape issues you will have will be with the safety of contractors or staff entering the building to carry out routine checks or to do work to the building.  You will have to ask yourself, does the lack of sprinklers affect these people's means of escape.  If so, then some compensatory measures will be required, but this is not likely.  More likely, the lack of sprinklers will have no effect on the means of escape for a few people for a few hours a week and so you can rest easy on that score and amend the FRA appropriately.

To be able to gauge what any possible compensatory measures might be, in the unlikely event that they are required for means of escape, more information should be furnished about the building.  

A important question is, why were the sprinklers installed in the first place?  If you know the answer to this, then you know the consequences of their disablement.

This sounds more like a property protection issue so the insurance company are likely to be the only party that is particularly interested.  They might be unconcerned about the lack of sprinklers if there is now no fire loading in the building (other than the structure of the building itself).  They should re-calculate the premium based on the new circumstances.  If the sprinklers were critical to the protection of the building for some reason they may have more concerns but you've got to take all that up with them.

The insurance company might have something to say about the security of the building.  Any illicit entry carries a high risk of arson with it.  Probably the best advice for compensatory measures you can get is to up the site security. Provided the building stays empty it has a very low risk of a fire starting and if no fire starts then the sprinklers aren't needed.

Stu

[Mike Buckley]

The only other aspect would be from the Health and Safety aspect where you need to bear in mind the safety of anybody who may be on the premise. There have been cases where a company has been prosecuted because a person has fallen through the roof of a building even though they had no business being on the roof in the first place. So even the arsonist who has set fire to the building needs to be protected.

However if the building is indeed empty and security is adequate then I would see no problem if the sprinkler system was non operational. Again looking at it from a different angle if the building is empty and unoccupied would it be necessary to heat the building in winter to stop the sprinkler system from freezing or to change the system to a wet/dry system to take account of the possibility?

[terry martin]

In this, an empty building, circumstance the RRO does not apply.

Should it become occpupied, i.e. a contractor, then it does.

So, if your 'contractor' wishes to do work on your behalf, then they should provide a risk Assessment to that effect.

so they need to demonstrate they are providing a safe environment for their staff.

It is they, as employer, that need to demonstrate compliance

[CivvyFSO]

In this, an empty building, circumstance the RRO does not apply.

Where in the RRO does it say that then?

[nearlythere]

In this, an empty building, circumstance the RRO does not apply.
Should it become occpupied, i.e. a contractor, then it does.
So, if your 'contractor' wishes to do work on your behalf, then they should provide a risk Assessment to that effect.
so they need to demonstrate they are providing a safe environment for their staff.
It is they, as employer, that need to demonstrate compliance

Think I might have to disagree Terry with your "empty buildng no RRO" theory. Me think it still applies but the matter that it is unoccupied is a significant factor with regards to risk to any relevant persons. The effect of a fire in the buildng and its effect on others would have to be assessed.

[kurnal]

The only other aspect would be from the Health and Safety aspect where you need to bear in mind the safety of anybody who may be on the premise. There have been cases where a company has been prosecuted because a person has fallen through the roof of a building even though they had no business being on the roof in the first place. So even the arsonist who has set fire to the building needs to be protected.

However if the building is indeed empty and security is adequate then I would see no problem if the sprinkler system was non operational. Again looking at it from a different angle if the building is empty and unoccupied would it be necessary to heat the building in winter to stop the sprinkler system from freezing or to change the system to a wet/dry system to take account of the possibility?

Mike is referring to actions taken against owners of buildings by trespassers under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. Let us not forget that the Fire Safety Order definition of Relevant Persons only includes persons who are lawfully on the premises.
Those responsible for the legislation did have some valuable forsight!

[alfi]

Thanks for the discussion guys always good to get different points of view

[nearlythere]

The only other aspect would be from the Health and Safety aspect where you need to bear in mind the safety of anybody who may be on the premise. There have been cases where a company has been prosecuted because a person has fallen through the roof of a building even though they had no business being on the roof in the first place. So even the arsonist who has set fire to the building needs to be protected.

However if the building is indeed empty and security is adequate then I would see no problem if the sprinkler system was non operational. Again looking at it from a different angle if the building is empty and unoccupied would it be necessary to heat the building in winter to stop the sprinkler system from freezing or to change the system to a wet/dry system to take account of the possibility?

Mike is referring to actions taken against owners of buildings by trespassers under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. Let us not forget that the Fire Safety Order definition of Relevant Persons only includes persons who are lawfully on the premises.
Those responsible for the legislation did have some valuable forsight!

Under this current wishy washy government's full  embrace of all things Human Rights, does a burgular,arsonist,terrorist, general good for nothing not have a lawful right to carry out his normal activities unhindered?
Seriously though what is lawfully on the premises? Is an arsonist only an arsonist when he commits the offence? Up to that point is he not lawfully on the premises just like any drunk who "wanders in" can be?

[terry martin]

ooops ive been too hasty in my wording again haven't i!!

Your right it doesn't say that, my hastily written point was that if there are no relevant persons then who are you protecting?

it would also be right to say that considering relevant persons also extends to persons outside of the building, and this should also be considered. 

i will be more carefull in futur

[alfi]

Originally this system was fitted when the site was a large warehouse unit, since then it has had major conversions and it is now split into much smaller retail units with 1 hour compatmentaion seperating the units so they are self sufficient, one unit has had there leg of sprinkler system isolated and removed...........Would it be feasible to remove the sprinkler system now to the empty unit if the client decided its to expenisve to repair?, it has AFD and redcare, what consideration would have to given to allow it to be removed , i.e insurance company agreement?, what legal obigations does he have to keep it?

[Phoenix]

The LPC Rules for sprinklers have the general condition that if the building is sprinklered then the whole building should be covered.    However, with one hour compartmentation it is acceptable to have one or more compartments not sprinklered. 

You have to be a little careful though depending upon the layout of the compartments.  If there are communicating doors between the sprinklered part of the building and the unsprinklered part then, to protect the sprinklered portion from a large fire in the unsprinklered part, the sprinkler system should extend into the unsprinklered part to cover those door openings.  If the interface between sprinklered and unsprinklered parts is imperforate then there is no such requirement.  Failure to cover any openings between sprinklered and unsprinklered parts could undermine the validity of the sprinklers in the whole building.  Any decent sprinkler installer will know precisely how the Rules have to be met.

Certainly, the insurers should be informed.

Stu

[kurnal]

Also consider the size of the new  retail units and when they were converted - eg ADB recommends that the maximum size of compartment for an unsprinklered shop is 2000sq m.

The best way out of this dilemma is to ask yourself (and the insurers) if the building was erected today for the use it is currently put, would it require sprinklers? If not in any part of the building then the only people with any interest in this would be the insurers.  

[alfi]

Thanks guys,

I shall go to site next week and do some in depth investigations and take it from there!, often easier once you start looking at it on the ground!