Fire Safety - Park Homes / Model Standards

[Midland Retty]

The point is that alot of the more established park home sites haven't been inspected since first registration. As such the residents planted small decorative trees to personalise their living space which have now grown to be quite big.

A number of site owners have let caravans be located very close to trees. Are tree's an immediate fire hazard? Ordinarily no, but as so many have you have pointed out it only takes a good spell of hot weather and connifers can ignite. Also some tress release resin or sap which is combustible and again can ignite on hot days.

The likelyhood of them igniting is low but the consequences if they are positioned next to a park home is high so they do need to be considered.

Nearlythere of course fire spread is an issue, you dont want a fire which has started elsewhere in the park to be able to travel round the site quickly and threaten the park homes.Clevelandfire mentions that alot of residents have put up wooden fencing around their homes. Some have even put up large wooden pagodas, car ports and such like. Now add all that to the mix , think about the potential for fire spread, fire loading etc and you have to look at these things more closely.

[blue-spud]

I found an america site on the internet that showes English Hawthorne being used as a fire break in areas likely to suffer from bushfires etc.

www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=145559

Admittedly this might not be any help for your application but still :/

[Midland Retty]

I found an america site on the internet that showes English Hawthorne being used as a fire break in areas likely to suffer from bushfires etc.

www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=145559

Admittedly this might not be any help for your application but still :/

Actually no thats really handy to know - Cheers Spud

[John Webb]

Happen to catch sight of this comment yesterday in the FPA Journal 'Fire Prevention ' issue 295, published December 1996. It was a report on a seminar held at the Fire Research Station.
At the end of the article it said (in connection with possible future research) that "....one fire brigade officer suggested that research is needed into the effects of living trees in permanent caravan parks... there have been a few cases recently in which a fire in one caravan was spread to neighbouring ones via the trees."

This was only six months before I left FRS, so I do not know if this was followed up in any way.

[nearlythere]

The point is that alot of the more established park home sites haven't been inspected since first registration. As such the residents planted small decorative trees to personalise their living space which have now grown to be quite big.

A number of site owners have let caravans be located very close to trees. Are tree's an immediate fire hazard? Ordinarily no, but as so many have you have pointed out it only takes a good spell of hot weather and connifers can ignite. Also some tress release resin or sap which is combustible and again can ignite on hot days.

The likelyhood of them igniting is low but the consequences if they are positioned next to a park home is high so they do need to be considered.

Nearlythere of course fire spread is an issue, you dont want a fire which has started elsewhere in the park to be able to travel round the site quickly and threaten the park homes.Clevelandfire mentions that alot of residents have put up wooden fencing around their homes. Some have even put up large wooden pagodas, car ports and such like. Now add all that to the mix , think about the potential for fire spread, fire loading etc and you have to look at these things more closely.

Yes, this is the possiblilty but is it significant for the purposes of a RA?
Think about all the wooden panel fences surrounding hundreds of thousands of houses in the country. Is a public footpath in a housing development a common area which should be risk assessed and should home owners be made to take all wooden fences down where they could be a combustible link between properties.
Are we not getting carried away a little and forgetting words like likelihood, probability, possibility, significant, chance, potential, reduce, tolerable etc? Otherwise some RAers could have us living in concrete jungles

[Midland Retty]

The point is that alot of the more established park home sites haven't been inspected since first registration. As such the residents planted small decorative trees to personalise their living space which have now grown to be quite big.

A number of site owners have let caravans be located very close to trees. Are tree's an immediate fire hazard? Ordinarily no, but as so many have you have pointed out it only takes a good spell of hot weather and connifers can ignite. Also some tress release resin or sap which is combustible and again can ignite on hot days.

The likelyhood of them igniting is low but the consequences if they are positioned next to a park home is high so they do need to be considered.

Nearlythere of course fire spread is an issue, you dont want a fire which has started elsewhere in the park to be able to travel round the site quickly and threaten the park homes.Clevelandfire mentions that alot of residents have put up wooden fencing around their homes. Some have even put up large wooden pagodas, car ports and such like. Now add all that to the mix , think about the potential for fire spread, fire loading etc and you have to look at these things more closely.

Yes, this is the possiblilty but is it significant for the purposes of a RA?
Think about all the wooden panel fences surrounding hundreds of thousands of houses in the country. Is a public footpath in a housing development a common area which should be risk assessed and should home owners be made to take all wooden fences down where they could be a combustible link between properties.
Are we not getting carried away a little and forgetting words like likelihood, probability, possibility, significant, chance, potential, reduce, tolerable etc? Otherwise some RAers could have us living in concrete jungles

Private houses /single domestic dwellings aren't covered by the order plus park homes are considerably more combustible than your average house.

So yes it does need to be taken account of in the RA

Whether or not it would form part of a significant finding in the assessment depends on numerous factors.im not saying the vegetation has to be moved necessarily, and thats why I submitted this post in the first place, I wanted to gather opinion so that in turn I wouldn't be overburdensome in my requirements of the landlord.

Everyone here has agreed connifers are readily ignitable. Imagine if one were to catch fire close to a park home.

BRE have done tests on this and the fire rapidly spread between tree and park home within minutes. From the radiated heat neighbouring park homes began to catch too.

So how is that not significant Nearlythere?

[nearlythere]

The point is that alot of the more established park home sites haven't been inspected since first registration. As such the residents planted small decorative trees to personalise their living space which have now grown to be quite big.

A number of site owners have let caravans be located very close to trees. Are tree's an immediate fire hazard? Ordinarily no, but as so many have you have pointed out it only takes a good spell of hot weather and connifers can ignite. Also some tress release resin or sap which is combustible and again can ignite on hot days.

The likelyhood of them igniting is low but the consequences if they are positioned next to a park home is high so they do need to be considered.

Nearlythere of course fire spread is an issue, you dont want a fire which has started elsewhere in the park to be able to travel round the site quickly and threaten the park homes.Clevelandfire mentions that alot of residents have put up wooden fencing around their homes. Some have even put up large wooden pagodas, car ports and such like. Now add all that to the mix , think about the potential for fire spread, fire loading etc and you have to look at these things more closely.

Yes, this is the possiblilty but is it significant for the purposes of a RA?
Think about all the wooden panel fences surrounding hundreds of thousands of houses in the country. Is a public footpath in a housing development a common area which should be risk assessed and should home owners be made to take all wooden fences down where they could be a combustible link between properties.
Are we not getting carried away a little and forgetting words like likelihood, probability, possibility, significant, chance, potential, reduce, tolerable etc? Otherwise some RAers could have us living in concrete jungles

Private houses /single domestic dwellings aren't covered by the order plus park homes are considerably more combustible than your average house.

So yes it does need to be taken account of in the RA

Whether or not it would form part of a significant finding in the assessment depends on numerous factors.im not saying the vegetation has to be moved necessarily, and thats why I submitted this post in the first place, I wanted to gather opinion so that in turn I wouldn't be overburdensome in my requirements of the landlord.

Everyone here has agreed connifers are readily ignitable. Imagine if one were to catch fire close to a park home.

BRE have done tests on this and the fire rapidly spread between tree and park home within minutes. From the radiated heat neighbouring park homes began to catch too.

So how is that not significant Nearlythere?

So what is the control measure? Chop down the trees, move the home along with all the attached services or tolerate it?

You say "Are tree's an immediate fire hazard? Ordinarily no, but as so many have you have pointed out it only takes a good spell of hot weather and connifers can ignite"

Trees are not the thing that one can move to more open ground when the weather is fine and dry for them to be moved back during the rainy season. So therefore trees are a fire hazard and there is no "Ordinarily no" situation.

What about an office building in the middle of a residential terrace? Would an attached hedge or a panel fence, regardless as to who it belonged to, constitute a Fire Hazard? What about a single nearby conifer tree in the rear garden of the office building?

[Midland Retty]

What about an office building in the middle of a residential terrace? Would an attached hedge or a panel fence, regardless as to who it belonged to, constitute a Fire Hazard? What about a single nearby conifer tree in the rear garden of the office building?

Hi Nearlythere

Not sure I follow your logic

As I mentioned previously park homes are more combustible than an ordinary house or office block  so Im not sure where you are coming from with that argument.

Never come across an office building in the middle of a row of terraced houses either. Sounds a bit bizzare. But one presumes there would be adequate Fire separation if built to building regs rather like the countless other commercial and residential properties which are next door to one another across the land!

"Are trees a fire hazard ordinarily no" was referring to the fact that most trees dont easily catch fire. But again we discussed connifers and most posters agreed they can ignite pretty easily. So take the connifer which is readily ignitable and whack it next to a park home which again is combustible would you not have concerns?

As you already say you cant move trees to suit the weather, so really you have answered your own question in so much that if you consider the tree to be a risk you would have it removed /chopped down.

Would i move the park home - of course not !

If you read my original post I asked a perfectly reasonable question "are there any types of tree which are easily ignitable"

[Martin]

Are we missing an opportunity to make a risk assessment and merely stating there is a risk and the conifer should go? Is it a reasonably practicable precaution to require this.  Balancing the quantum of risk against the cost, effort and energy to control the limited probability  of a possible significant consequence doesn't to my mind justify the recommendation to remove the trees. What is going to ignite the tree? Lack of ignition source is another part of does the overall risk justify action.


I do enjoy being argumentative after Friday lunch.

[Midland Retty]

Firstly Martin

Please dont use big words in short succession that I dont understand .

Secondly I dont disagree with you BUT there are certain things we need to be clear on.

The Caravan Park Model Standards states that combustible items should not be permitted in between caravans and that fire hazards should be assessed and where necessary removed.

All I've done is ask the question about the ignitability of trees, how they may aid fire spread, and how combustible they are. You will find also that keeping vegetation / trees short is a stipulation of the site license conditions.

So why is that?

The replies Ive got back and some external sources confirm that most trees arent readily ignitable, and won't pose any significant risk ORDINARILY.

However from the info I have got evergreen trees (connifers) is a different matter

Spells of hot weather can dry out connifers and they can then ignite.

Im not saying they are necessarily a problem or otherwise. But if you read my threads again you will see where Im coming from and why I asked the question.

I SAY AGAIN FOR THE FINAL TIME PARK HOMES AREN'T LIKE YOUR STANDARD BRICK CONTRUCTED HOUSES!

Myself and me good old buddy Nearlythere got on to the subject of connifers and I said based on the information I gathered they may be a risk that needs considering.

BRE Tests confirm connifers are easily ignitable and allow swift fire spread
Park Homes are vulnerable and combustible

So we are not even talking about the tree spontaneously combusting, or someone deliberately igniting them, we are looking at the bigger picture.

Such as:-

1) Arson
2) Fire elsewhere in the park ignited by an unspecified means being able to spread rapidly because of vegetation etc
3) People lighting BBQs close to tinder dry vegetation
4) Vulnerability of Park Home because of the construction
5) Nearby ignition sources (faulty site electrics)

The list goes on and on

I haven't even had lunch yet

[nearlythere]

Firstly Martin

Please dont use big words in short succession that I dont understand .

Secondly I dont disagree with you BUT there are certain things we need to be clear on.

The Caravan Park Model Standards states that combustible items should not be permitted in between caravans and that fire hazards should be assessed and where necessary removed.

All I've done is ask the question about the ignitability of trees, how they may aid fire spread, and how combustible they are. You will find also that keeping vegetation / trees short is a stipulation of the site license conditions.

So why is that?

The replies Ive got back and some external sources confirm that most trees arent readily ignitable, and won't pose any significant risk ORDINARILY.

However from the info I have got evergreen trees (connifers) is a different matter

Spells of hot weather can dry out connifers and they can then ignite.

Im not saying they are necessarily a problem or otherwise. But if you read my threads again you will see where Im coming from and why I asked the question.

I SAY AGAIN FOR THE FINAL TIME PARK HOMES AREN'T LIKE YOUR STANDARD BRICK CONTRUCTED HOUSES!

Myself and me good old buddy Nearlythere got on to the subject of connifers and I said based on the information I gathered they may be a risk that needs considering.

BRE Tests confirm connifers are easily ignitable and allow swift fire spread
Park Homes are vulnerable and combustible

So we are not even talking about the tree spontaneously combusting, or someone deliberately igniting them, we are looking at the bigger picture.

Such as:-

1) Arson
2) Fire elsewhere in the park ignited by an unspecified means being able to spread rapidly because of vegetation etc
3) People lighting BBQs close to tinder dry vegetation
4) Vulnerability of Park Home because of the construction
5) Nearby ignition sources (faulty site electrics)

The list goes on and on

I haven't even had lunch yet

Bit late for lunch now MR.
Have a liguid evening meal instead. Cheers.

[Midland Retty]

Thats the best thing you have suggested all day

Cheers - To your health NT

[Big A]

I certainly don't dispute that living in a combustible dwelling in a tinder dry wooded area is hazardous (although at some points during this thread I was getting flashbacks to the 'hazards of doormats in corridors thread')- recall the vivid images of raging forest fires in California, Australia etc and the rapid consummation of the timber houses therein.
 However IMHO those people have put themselves in danger in much the same way as someone who chooses to live at the foot of a sleeping volcano or who buys a house in an area prone to flooding.

It is far more reasonable to move the caravans than to move/cut down the trees.

[blue-spud]

Sorry to join in but i just want to mention something.

If the main worry is connifers and the drying out factor what about getting the site to create an automatic watering system fed from rainwater butts?  This would stop either the caravans or the trees from having to being moved or chopped down and you would be able to plant some marsh plants in around them, Lobelia cardinalis Queen Victoria or spearwort maybe

[Midland Retty]

It is far more reasonable to move the caravans than to move/cut down the trees.

Whilst I dont disagree we are talking about an established site now where plots have been in place for over 18 years, convincing the residents to move their home for the sake of a tree would be difficult, and besides I think you have misunderstood my post.

Can I make it clear please that we are only talking about connifers which encroach into the 6m spacing allowed between caravans /park homes etc.

I do not suggest for one moment that a copse or wooded area that borders onto the park home site for example  should be cleared or removed, it is just the mainly ornamental connifers residents have planted in the gardens between homes which in some cases are now in excess of 14ft high and have grown in girth to the point where they actuall touch the park homes.

Posters please be aware at no time have I suggested the removal of trees in my original post i merely asked if certain types of trees or shrubs posed a hazard.

From the BRE reports, and your comments connifers are perhaps the most readily ignitable and the Model Standards themselves states that nothing combustible should be allowed in between park homes.