Water Supplies for Firefighting

[ian gough]

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.

[kurnal]

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.

[ian gough]

That's interesting. My next question is: who is or should pay for the static tank?

[kurnal]

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.

[wee brian]

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.

[ian gough]

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.

[kurnal]

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.

[Mike Buckley]

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.

[ian gough]

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?

[wee brian]

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.

[kurnal]

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?

[ian gough]

Getting interesting eh folks?

[Chris Houston]

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.

[wee brian]

I think we have all got developers to provide hydrants in the past using the "bluff and persuasion Act 0f 19 frozen to death"

[Mike Buckley]

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.