Author Topic: Sprinklers no longer needed  (Read 194 times)

Offline lyledunn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
Sprinklers no longer needed
« on: July 05, 2019, 09:10:57 AM »
My query relates to a small, landlocked pub in a city centre location. Bar on ground with occupancy of 60, sitting area on first for 30 and toilets and kitchen on second. The footprint is tiny but the travel distance from the second floor to the only exit at the front of the premises is around 38m with the route via the first floor lounge, accommodation stair and ground floor bar. Sprinklers were fitted and along with a L2 fire alarm and a fire engineers report BC accepted the solution. We have now acquired the premises next door and knocked through at first floor level. This provides us with an alternative escape route for the first and second floor. The route from second still passes through the tiny first floor lounge but we can get access to a protected stair within required travel distance. A fresh look at the new setup would definitely not require sprinkler provision. However, BC are saying that the sprinklers must remain as any new works should not diminish existing fire safety provision. In fact, debate is taking place as to whether the sprinkler provision should be extended to the additional area.
The fire engineer agrees with BC for the same reason. A similar alteration just completed in the same block has been been passed by the same BC officer but they didn?t have a sprinkler system to begin with.

Offline Messy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 297
Re: Sprinklers no longer needed
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2019, 01:35:42 PM »
That is bloody ridiculous and sounds like total jobsworths in action.

Where is the "any new works should not diminish existing fire safety provision" from as surely its been misinterpreted?

Offline AnthonyB

  • Firenet Extinguisher Expert
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2270
    • http://www.sm-ms.co.uk
Re: Sprinklers no longer needed
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2019, 07:36:06 PM »
You shouldn't reduce existing precautions, but you aren't - you are providing an equivalent level of safety via lesser TD's and a second route that is protected. Surely as long as you are achieving the functional aims of the regulations the methodology used, unless flawed, doesn't matter, it's meant to be non prescriptive.
Anthony Buck
Fire Safety Technical Lead at a BAFE SP205 accredited consultancy

Extinguisher/Fire History Enthusiast

Fire Extinguisher Facebook Group:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=65...415&ref=ts
http://www.youtube.com/user/contactacb
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/anthony-buck-36b9572

Offline John Webb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 839
Re: Sprinklers no longer needed
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2019, 02:07:28 PM »
Is there any sense in retaining sprinklers for property protection at all? Or is the fire alarm system linked to the outside world?
(And out of great curiosity, what sprinkler heads are fitted?)
John Webb
Consultant on Fire Safety, Diocese of St Albans
(Views expressed are my own)

Offline lyledunn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
Re: Sprinklers no longer needed
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2019, 08:07:03 AM »
Not sure with respect to the sprinkler heads John, what are you thinking?

Offline John Webb

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 839
Re: Sprinklers no longer needed
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2019, 04:28:16 PM »
I wondered in part how old the sprinkler system is, and if fast-response sprinklers were fitted to make it a life-safety system as part of the BC acceptance.
John Webb
Consultant on Fire Safety, Diocese of St Albans
(Views expressed are my own)