Chris,
Your point re insurance benefits and property coverage are well taken and you are of course correct. However, getting auto suppression included in new builds is one thing; getting them retro fitted over a complex estate is quite another, especially in a large working hospital. Realistically, it ain't gonna happen. You can't eat a whole elephant at one sitting.
To protect the defined life risk area in accordance with SHTM82 Appendix A, we're protecting an area about three times the size of the particular life risk area (including a main kitchen where an alternative suppression system is to be installed, and the floors above and below).
It's not perfect, and from an insurance point of view, we're actually protecting only a very small percentage of our estate, so there will probably be little insurance advantage at this time.
Nevertheless, I sleep a little easier knowing that I've given some highly vulnerable babies and children the best possible chance if there's a fire. It's a start. The principles have now been established and I know other projects elswhere are actively being considered.
The real point I want to make is that the prevarication should now stop and upward pressure should be applied by FSA's to get suppression systems on the agenda at design meetings, because quite simply, there is no ambiguity about the value of fire suppression, either for life safety or asset protection - and any system effectively does both. It's time to get this particular show on the road and I'd prefer it wasn't on the back of another disaster.
The bean counters have had it all their own way for far too long on this issue. Using a good case history like Warrington is not some kind of moral blackmail - it is valid, justifiable research in the interest of saving life and property.