Author Topic: CARE HOMES - to inspecting officers (Read 49724 times)

Pip · « **Reply #30 on:** January 26, 2007, 02:39:50 PM »

has'nt changed a lot though in respect to sprinklers

wee brian · « **Reply #31 on:** January 28, 2007, 09:42:17 PM »

Sprinklers "required" in 30m plus blocks of flats

Max comparment size for unsprinklered storage buildings

New Alternative approaches for
Multi storey flats
Four storey Houses
Loft conversions
Care homes

!!!

Pip · « **Reply #32 on:** January 29, 2007, 11:07:03 AM »

just tinkling-could have gone a lot further.

wee brian · « **Reply #33 on:** January 30, 2007, 09:18:21 AM »

Could have - but maybe it didnt need to.

Pip · « **Reply #34 on:** January 31, 2007, 10:42:23 AM »

Government want more sprinklers,especially in schools.They wont be put in by L.A. unless there is an incentive or a requirement.little to ofer in the new ADB.

kurnal · « **Reply #35 on:** January 31, 2007, 11:34:47 AM »

Then local authorities will continue to lose schools and complain that they cannot afford to rebuild them. As most LAs do not insure schools or have such enormous excesses they have to fund the rebuilding costs from within existing budgets. When will they finally wake up to the benefits of sprinklers and get the message?
The benefits of cost saved and continuity of the childrens education are surely benefits enough if only they would see it.

Pip · « **Reply #36 on:** January 31, 2007, 01:00:23 PM »

it is not so much they don't realise it, but there just is not the money to do it.My local County council voted to fit sprinklers in all schools,then when they were told how much it would cost they had to review that so that now hardly any new build will have them-exceptional circumstances only-maybe for instance a 'special' school for difficult children.The L.A I work with has over 500 schools- it just does not have the capital.The cost of doing it to every school would out weigh its potential fire losses, how ever costly/tragic that is for the individual school concerned.You also have to look at how schools are funded now-most of the money goes straight to the school,and not the L.A.- and they don't want to spend 50/100/150k (which they don't have anyway) on a sprinkler system-they want computers/staff/internal alterations etc etc.Thats why more needs to be done by the government if they want sprinklers in schools-provide the money/trade offs or legislate.

Pip · « **Reply #37 on:** January 31, 2007, 01:04:22 PM »

Politics wins-politicians talk the talk, but when told how much it will cost, and then think about the votes lost/increase in council tax etc they backtrack.There isn't enough money for the basics ie social care, so paying up extra money for items that are not statutory take a back seat if it isn't 'sexy' enough politically.

kurnal · « **Reply #38 on:** January 31, 2007, 01:54:02 PM »

But you wouldnt look at all 500 schools- I bet there are probably 40 - 50 that should be a priority for sprinklers by risk assessment.
Retro fitting would be an expensive nightmare. But there can be no excuse for not including them in new builds.

So we cant blame the local politicians - there are too many demands on their already limited finances. And the funds dont go to the LA they go to the schools.

Following the same logic we cant blame national politicians for making it a priorty either. Or for changing the rules on LA funding. or for making toppling dictators or replacing nuclear subs or giving doctors huge pay rises a bigger priority than ensuring that new school building projects are adequately funded and properly designed.

Fires in schools. Yeh they cost us £50-£60million per year. Untold harm to childrens education. Adding sprinklers in all new secondary schools built nationally ( say 200 new schools per year) probably costing about 2 million per year. In 30 years time school fire losses would be unheard of. Sounds like good value to me.

Keep banging the drum Pip. Keep telling the politicians. One day they may just listen.

Pip · « **Reply #39 on:** January 31, 2007, 02:35:09 PM »

'But there can be no excuse for not including them in new builds.'
But they don't because they argue that 'new builds' have more compartmentation and fire resistance.quite often the quote for a system in a new build is proportionally quite high-and because of poor water supplies,putting in a tank etc increases it even more.everybody will tell you how great sprinklers can be and we should be putting them in-until they are asked to pay for them.
And yes politicians spend the money where they want to, not necerssarily where it is needed, and they are only interested in the short term gains.

Pip · « **Reply #40 on:** January 31, 2007, 02:37:48 PM »

please tell me who will fit 200 sprinkler systems for £2 million-even in new builds- if I could get them fitted for that price I might be able to pursuade the L.A. to fit more!!!!!!!

kurnal · « **Reply #41 on:** January 31, 2007, 03:05:54 PM »

Just let me check my calcs on my fingers again....theres a 0 missing somewhere- and whose going to argue about £0....

Funny how it aint a problem if someone else has to pay. Its only cos they are mainly govt buildings that they argue. If the majority were public sector financed you can bet it would be in the Building Regs

wee brian · « **Reply #42 on:** January 31, 2007, 03:33:54 PM »

Where do you blokes get all this from???

When did the Government ever say it wants more sprinklers?? Its certainly keen on better regulation and improving fire safety - not quite the same thing.

If they didn't care about costs to the private sector then they would have introduced more in ADB.

Schools aren't covered in the new ADB so maybe that's why it doesnt ask for sprinklers in them?

Pip · « **Reply #43 on:** January 31, 2007, 03:59:54 PM »

'Where do you blokes get all this from???'

Government minister quoted in the 'Times' about a week ago said sprinklers should be put in schools.-sorry can't give you exact reference
draft BB100-( I believe that the new ADB directs school design to the new still awaited BB100)only suggests consideration-points out it is not a statutory requirement.

kurnal · « **Reply #44 on:** January 31, 2007, 05:07:55 PM »

You are right Wee B- they dont want more sprinklers. The whole point is that some of us think they should. And gradually if we keep grinding on about it and as more schools / care homes etc keep burning down we will eventually change their mind.

If the Scots can do it for Care homes and HMOs why cant we South of the border? Clearly the only effective form of persuasion is a multi death fire. A recent school fire in Derby cost over £11million and was a close run thing on life safety by all accounts.

News:

Author Topic: CARE HOMES - to inspecting officers (Read 49724 times)