Viewpoint A


John Smeaton, interim managing director at the FPA, talks about the growing interest in fixed firefighting systems


S INTERIM managing director at the FPA I am privileged, for a short while, to be able


to view active fixed fire protection from inside the UK’s national fire safety organisation. Previously having been employed as head of commercial property underwriting and risk management at Aviva for many years, I am now viewing this topic through a different lens. Following the Grenfell Tower


disaster, the FPA is aware that interest in fixed firefighting systems (FFS) has grown significantly, with many local councils considering retrofitting of sprinklers to their existing tower block stock. Whilst the FPA encourages the deployment of FFS, we are acutely aware that sprinkler systems are not a panacea, and must form an integral part of the overall fire safety management policy of the protected space and building. Here at the FPA we are skilled in


reviewing FFS design and installation, carrying out inspections and having the facility to carry out sprinkler head testing too. We have an excellent team in our laboratory, which is growing due to demand. In the previous issue of Fire & Risk Management, our technical director Dr Jim Glockling advised you of the Association of British Insurers (ABI) commissioning the FPA to carry out a piece of work, which included addressing the quality of installation to support residential sprinkler systems. This was completed in January, and


is with the ABI for consideration. We will revisit this in a future edition. The interest in FFS is likely to grow even further following a fire on


31 December 2017 in a multi storey car park next to the Liverpool Echo Arena, which in addition to severely damaging the structure, destroyed approximately 1,400 vehicles. This structure was not a sprinklered


risk. Here, we should consider reviewing Approved Document B of the Building Regulations (ADB) relative to commentary regarding FFS, and businesses relying on such car park facilities should consider the consequences of denial of access to such sites in their own business impact analysis. Dr Glockling’s column on page 19 covers this incident in more detail. Under Car Parks – General Principles


of ADB, paragraph 11.2 includes words such as ‘the fire load is well defined’, and ‘where the car park is well ventilated, there is a low probability of fire spread from one storey to another’. Further, under Mechanical smoke extract paragraph 18.13, there is a note which states: ‘Car parks are not normally expected to be fitted with sprinklers (see paragraph 11.2).’ Research carried out by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) showed that car fire loads have increased significantly, and the recent car park fire in Liverpool is another example of a large fire of that type where the behaviour of the fire does not reflect the commentary in ADB. We will lobby the Department for


Communities and Local Government to consider urgently reviewing ADB relative to fitting sprinkler systems in multi storey car parks


John Smeaton is interim managing director at the Fire Protection Association. For more information, view page 5


www.frmjournal.com FEBRUARY 2018 1


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