Sprinklers in Schools: Dissertation Research

[Chris Houston]

Should be reasonably easy to work that one out.  It so happens that I do consultancy work for a major UK supermarket.  So a store tends to be worth about £20 million, has £2.5 million of stock and £100 million per year of sales.

So assume it takes 2 years between the complete loss of the building and them building a new one and getting the business back, it would cost about £223 million per fire.  Work out how many they loose per year and can do the trick.

Reputation damage and injuries and deaths however don't have a value that is so easily measureable, but it'll give you a shot in the dark.

That said, it is kinda of irrelevant, as to get the large compartment sizes that supermaket owners tend to want, sprinklers tend to be necessary to comply with Building Regs.  Very few supermarkets I visit don't have sprinklers.

[kurnal]

Was it Sainsbury's that said many years ago(after a loss in chichester?) that it was more affordable for them to lose one store per year than retro fit sprinklers?

Yes most used to fiercely resist the installation of sprinklers an I think that comment was allegedly made in the early aftermath of a major fire. But not certain if it was sainsburys, tesco or B&Q, all have had similar comments attributed to them.

I suggest we judge their actions not their alleged words- it appears to me that they have now seen the light and most new stores that I see have sprinklers installed- possibly because of the compartment size limitation, but even our new sainsburys in our town- sub 2000sqm - has had sprinklers installed.

[xan]

my memory dims somewhat as this must have been at least 20 years ago.I assume that the comment was valid at that time in respect to the regs back then.I am convinced it was J.S., and think I read it in a 'Fire' journal.

[jokar]

It was B&Q and they had to revise thier opinion afetr a public backlash where people stopped going to the stores.

[Mike Buckley]

Yes, and losing one their warehouse stores in Leicester sharpened their minds as well.

[wee brian]

Losing buildings was never an issue for them. But they got a lot of grief from insurers and the PR was becoming a problem.

These large organisations replace their buildings at regular intervals - because people like new shops.  If one burns down it just jumps the que for a refit/rebuild.

[Chris Houston]

I'm not surprised they got grief.  Who wants to insure a company that doesn't care too much if their buldings burn down.

[wee brian]

Its business. Why would you waste money on protecting a building that you were planning to pull down anyway?

[Chris Houston]

Because there is usualy an overlap between property protection between occupany safety and property protection.
Because you might be putting neighbouring buildings at risk of fire.
Because burning buildings damage the environment.
To protect reputation damage.
Because when customers are forced to go elsewhere following a fire, many end up accustomed to the alternative and don't ever come back.

And if someone has a business model that means they don't care about protecting their buildings from fire, then they should not expect insurers to be comfortable underwriting that same risk.  If you are happy for it to burn - don't insure it.

[Chris Houston]

And if we are talking about schools (which the thread should be about) then you must consider
- damage to childrens education
- bussing pupils is problematic and puts a strain on resources on other schools
- schools are also used by comunity groups, scouts, dance classes, police training etc
- impact on staff moral (I've known deputy head teachers to resign as the result of the stress of a major school fire)
- loss of years of unique teaching aids and materials
- increased cost of insurance in future, cost of insurnace policy excess

[Midland Retty]

I'm not surprised they got grief.  Who wants to insure a company that doesn't care too much if their buldings burn down.

Quite!

We in our brigade area are seeing a vast change in company attitudes partly perhaps because of new fire safety legislation but mainly because of the insurance industry. Is there any particular reason for this Chris?

I'm hearing more and more from RP's telling me how insurance companies are asking for a,b or c to be done.

Their requirements are more from a building protection point of view, but stuff that also impacts on life safety too.

Don't get me wrong I know the Insurance companies have always done this - but it just seems to have got more prominent recently... any I wonder if there is any reason for that.

[Chris Houston]

We tend to pick up on life safety stuff anyway even when only doing property work simply because there is an overlap and it would be a missed opportunity not to.

I can think of no particular reason to explain the recent trend.  Often insurance programs run in 5 year cycles and surveys are done in local batches and perhaps it is just that X insurer sent an enthusiastic surveyor to the West Midlands?

[Midland Retty]

Ahhh that may explain it - thinking about it the premises I had in mind do all belong to one common parent group so that would make sense.

[ianmoore4102]

Articles:

As part of my literature review I'm looking for magazine articles on school building design & sprinklers.

Can anyone point me in the direction of any related articles that you may be able to recall?

[xan]

And if we are talking about schools (which the thread should be about) then you must consider
- damage to childrens education
- bussing pupils is problematic and puts a strain on resources on other schools
- schools are also used by comunity groups, scouts, dance classes, police training etc
- impact on staff moral (I've known deputy head teachers to resign as the result of the stress of a major school fire)
- loss of years of unique teaching aids and materials
- increased cost of insurance in future, cost of insurnace policy excess

all very correct and true,but the bottom line is that the person who holds the budget for the fire safety improvements sees those as other departments problems,and therefore on a limited budget can't afford to bale them out.There was not enough money to fulfil benchmark ( not in the short term anyway) let alone major investments in building protection.