The intrinsic value of fire protection

In the UK, we have seen a number of large loss fire in recent months involving buildings where rapid and ‘unexpected’ fire spread has been a major feature. These include the Holiday Inn hotel in Walsall; the Premier Inn at Cribb’s Causeway, Bristol; the block of flats in Worcester Park, south-west London; the Beechmere retirement complex in Crewe; the Ocado warehouse in Andover and most recently, The Cube student accommodation in Bolton.

So what do these fires have in common? Clearly the fire spread extremely rapidly, often externally and resulted in the complete destruction of these buildings. But what about the buildings? They used a range of Modern Methods of Construction, with many being of timber-framed construction. There is little information available to date on these particular buildings but there are a number of documented examples of modern buildings where fire protection systems have been poorly installed and maintained, and even missing from key areas of the buildings. In fact the quality of construction of many buildings has been found to be at best poor, if not downright shoddy (see the Hackitt report and the Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Construction of Edinburgh Schools).

The ASFP believes the failings of the buildings (and others like them) are the result of decades of a prevalent culture in which fire safety has not been considered as seriously as is required. The race to the bottom culture in the construction industry, which extends from design through to final construction, was clearly identified in the Hackitt Report on Building Regulations.

The report following the first phase of the Public Inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire also highlighted a number of building failures – the major one being due to the cladding material. It drew attention to failures of some key fire protection measures inside the tower, noting that that ‘effective compartmentation’ was bypassed ‘at an early stage’ as a result of the fire on the outside passing in through the windows, which are not required to be fire resisting.

This was not a surprise to the ASFP which has long highlighted the potential for failures in compartmentation due to lack of maintenance and poor workmanship. As far back as 2003, a Government sponsored ASFP report on passive fire protection in buildings, stated that “Public safety is being impinged by incorrect passive fire protection measures and we feel that a disaster caused by accelerated or unexpected fire spread could follow if no action is taken to improve initial standards and to define the responsibility of building occupiers.”

While some in the fire industry have suggested that fire sprinklers are the panacea for all situations, the ASFP is clear that fire protection must be part of a holistic system that ensures that failures or inadequacies in one system are compensated by others. As a result, the only viable answer is to improve the overall quality of the built environment, raise understanding of the role and value of each fire safety system and ensure the competency of installers of such systems.

The Ocado warehouse fire offers an excellent example of why all systems must be correctly specified, installed and maintained rather than played off against each other as part of a value engineering argument. The installation of sprinklers is often used to justify larger and larger compartment sizes within modern buildings. But the Ocado fire demonstrates why the traditional ‘belt and braces’ premise employed by engineers since Victorian times is a more fitting approach. With the sprinkler system switched off – even for just a short time – the fire was able to spread with devastating effect.

Apportioning blame

The Public Inquiry report into Grenfell appeared to suggest that the fire service should bear some blame for loss of life at Grenfell for sticking to the stay put policy that was in place for the building. While it is legitimate to question why the stay put guidance was not rescinded earlier, such guidance has served firefighting operations well over the years. In fact, last year there were over 5,000 fires in purpose built blocks of flats where stay put policies were successfully implemented and compartmentation was effective.

Building owners and fire services alike must be confident that buildings are constructed and maintained in accordance with the building regulations and that they can rely on them to perform as expected should a fire occur. However, changes in building materials and construction processes have transformed the way in which our building stock behaves in fire; and poor workmanship and light touch enforcement of building regulations has frequently resulted in buildings that offer poor levels of fire protection. Cost rather than quality has become the key driver.

The only way to ensure the safety of our buildings is to adequately enforce the building regulations and require owners and responsible persons to undertake regular audits of compartmentation and other fire safety systems. Similarly, competency requirements for specifiers, installers, maintainers and responsible persons must be defined and policed.

Blaming the fire service or the fire safety sector when lives are lost and poorly built buildings are destroyed in fires is not the answer. Adequate enforcement is key but education about the role played by fire safety systems and their intrinsic value is also vital. Only then will the importance of quality and competency, rather than cost be truly recognised and the safety of our built environment assured.

For more information, go to www.asfp.org.uk