Absolutely not - the risk assessment methodology used in the above is industry-standard and fully considers the hazards, probability and consequences on an 'event'. If probability is low, the value of the 'consequences' part of the equation becomes largely immaterial. The method does not, however, take any heed of ACOPs, BSs, ADB & other guidance - the assessment claims that risk is low so there is no need to.
The issue is not just sprinklers - it relates to most of the fire protection - if the 'purist' risk assessment methodology is followed there will be little fire protection left.
It is a fact that the probability of having a major fire in any one commercial premises (over its design life) will be very small indeed. Even if you do have a fire, generally speaking the probability of death or serious injury (in an office building, for example) tends not to be high.
Once we have 'pure' risk-based legislation, the route will be open for any employer to reduce/remove their existing / future fire protection measures if they believe that they can demonstrate that the risk reduction they provide is disproportionate to the cost of provision / maintenance. We could end up with little protection left.
As a fire engineer, deciding not to provide well-established and proven 'safe' levels of protection, as enshrined in British Standards etc, on the 'assumption' that you won't have a major fire (dress it up as 'risk assessment' if you like) fills me with concern! I would welcome the views of others!