Sprinkler system removal

[Mar62]

Can anyone help with this or point me in the right direction?

A building which was once section 20 and now has written confirmation that it is no longer classed as section 20 has a sprinkler system which covers each floor.
a fit out was recently carried out to part of the building which now houses laboratories. It would be desirable to remove the sprinkler system. In brief, it has an L3 alarm system, ext's on each common area level and in tenants areas, two staircases accessible from each level, one main and one external escape. Legally - can the sprinklers be removed without consultation with BC / fire authority? Have tried BC but seemed to go round in circles on the phone with no-one being able to give me an answer.

[nearlythere]

Can anyone help with this or point me in the right direction?

A building which was once section 20 and now has written confirmation that it is no longer classed as section 20 has a sprinkler system which covers each floor.
a fit out was recently carried out to part of the building which now houses laboratories. It would be desirable to remove the sprinkler system. In brief, it has an L3 alarm system, ext's on each common area level and in tenants areas, two staircases accessible from each level, one main and one external escape. Legally - can the sprinklers be removed without consultation with BC / fire authority? Have tried BC but seemed to go round in circles on the phone with no-one being able to give me an answer.

Martin.
In order to focus the minds of BC and FA I would advise them both by recorded letter that it is the intention to decommission and remove the sprinkler system giving the reasons why it is considered no longer required, and give them a reasonable period to make comment.  Then do it.

[Midland Retty]

Hi Martin.

What is the rough area of the footprint of the building and how many floors has the building got?

[jokar]

The FRS will advise that sprinklers protect the buildings and the people in there and in accordance with their sprinkler position statement that will be theirbest advice.  However, it is the Local Authority that will ahve to agree to the removal.  The FRA will need to ensure that there is a business case for that to happen and in accordance with SI 2012 3124 clause 4 will need to be complied with

[Tom Sutton]

This may have some relevance,
http://fire.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=119.0
http://www.westminster.gov.uk/services/environment/landandpremises/buildings/section-20/

[Mar62]

Thanks for your comments.
Tom, yes that  Westminster article is what started it all! Already had an application started with a local council under section 20, then we saw that article and the same client now wants it out of his other building (the one above). But they are saying that you still have to apply under this and that but are unclear and unsure how??

[kurnal]

Sometimes if a local a act required sprinklers then in providing them the developer may also have taken full advantage of additional potential benefits of installing sprinklers, eg the fire resistance of elements of structure  or compartmentation may have been relaxed.

A competent assessment will take this into account in making the case for their removal. I presume you arelooking at a full removal rather than a partial removal, as this would also raise questions of fire separation between sprinklered and unsprinklered parts of the building.

You have little to lose by making an application under Building Regulations in these early days since the local acts were repealed, and it might save a few sleepless nights in removing any element of doubt.

[Mar62]

Thanks Kurnal and others.

Back to Building Control then by the looks of it 

[jayjay]

Also inform the premises Insurance company the will also will have an interest.

[Tom Sutton]

Check out the regulations, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1939/97/contents/enacted it appears the the BC have lost their powers and it is up to the FRS to enforce the RR(FS)O unless the sprinklers were installed as a compensatory factor. When it was in force you would need permission to alter the sprinklers. http://davidslade.co.uk/2009/06/13/a-quick-overview-guide-to-the-london-building-act-amendment-act-1939-section-20/

[ian gough]

This is a good question and one that is increasingly being asked. It is also relevant of course to smoke control systems and maybe even automatic fire detection systems. Unfortunatley, there are no easy answers and the topic was certainly not given suitable consideration by those enforcers who should have thought things through a little more.

Full marks then to the Coalition Government for causing more confusion and reducing standards of fire safety in some of the larger risks we tend to concern ourselves with.

However, from personal experience, the problem arises that the original building regulations' application would not necessarily have identified why the 'additional' protection was required. It could have been needed for a range of current issues i.e. B1 - B5 and therefore might still be necessary. And Kurnal also makes an excellent point re: 'trade-offs'.

Of course, finding someone to make a decision will be interesting and fire and rescue service file thinning exercises will add to the fun.

At least there is a possibility that after the fire - when most prosecutions now take place - you might find out the answer to your question.