NEWS
expect, the GSA wanted to take advantage of improvements in the technology and install the best system for the building. ‘The installation time for the
replacement system in the post-2014 restoration would have been broadly similar, irrespective of the type of system commissioned.’
GSA responds
Herald Scotland later reported on the GSA’s ‘trenchant’ response, aiming to ‘address further rumours, supposition and speculation’. The GSA responded: ‘In light
of other evidence received by the Committee, the GSA considers it is important that the Committee understands that the pre-2014 fire mist suppression system was not fully installed. This system suffered widespread damage in the fire and was in need of substantial repair before it could be operational.’ Pumps were on site but not
installed, and suffered ‘extensive water damage’, with most of the pipework in the western part of the building destroyed, while the remainder post 2014 was contaminated by smoke, and the GSA stated that ‘it is therefore not the case that there was a 95% complete mist suppression system following the 2014 fire’. Also, it noted that ‘following expert inspection and advice, the GSA therefore decided to take advantage of advances in technology since the original system was installed by
including an up to date system as part of the Mackintosh Restoration Project. Further suggestions were also made during the Committee meeting that a temporary system could have been put in place. ‘To the best of the GSA’s
knowledge, having sought expert advice, there is no temporary fire suppression system suitable for a building and project of the scale and complexity of the Mackintosh Building and the Mackintosh Restoration Project that could have been installed during the construction period. ‘It is considered that the extent of
restoration works could not have been carried out with a live fire suppression system being present as it would need to have the coverage, certification and equipment equivalent to that of a permanent system. The significantly higher risk of accidental flooding/ water damage is also likely to be too great for an insurer to accept’. The GSA also noted: ‘These are
all reasons why it is highly unusual to have an operational fire suppression system present during construction works of this scale and complexity, as the Committee has heard from various sources. The GSA is not aware of any example of a system that has been used that would have been relevant to the Mackintosh Restoration Project.’ It took issue with Mr Mackenzie’s comment that he did not ‘even see the appointment of a specialist fire engineer’ between the fires, stating that ‘as explained to the Committee
on 15 November 2018, the GSA appointed Atelier Ten as a specialist fire engineer following the 2014 fire’, with his role continuing to the 2018 fire. Compartmentation meanwhile
‘had already been introduced where practical into the building prior to the 2014 fire. Further, the Mackintosh Building already met acceptable standards in relation to fire safety prior to the 2014 fire, but the GSA proactively decided to add an additional layer of protection, beyond that which is present in most historic buildings across the UK. In light of the professional advice received by the GSA, and other relevant factors, it is satisfied that the decision to pursue the water mist suppression system was the correct one’. Additional measures implemented
between 2014 and 2018 included fire doors, 24 hour security and an automatic fire detection system, and the GSA added that ‘any suggestion that the Mackintosh Building was ‘‘unprotected’’ during the Mackintosh Restoration Project is therefore not borne out by the evidence’. It also ‘strongly’ questioned
a ‘contention’ by Mr Mackenzie that discovering asbestos was ‘not a credible reason’ for delaying the installation of the mist system, adding: ‘As Mr Mackenzie will no doubt be aware, asbestos plans, surveys and registers will often not be able to identify or anticipate all asbestos in a building, particularly for a historic building such as the Mackintosh Building.’
www.frmjournal.com MARCH 2019
11
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
