NEWS FPA responds to Notre-Dame fire

THE FIRE Protection Association (FPA) has given its response to the devastating fire at the Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris, France, in April. The terrible destruction of the

roof of Notre-Dame Cathedral by fire is a stark reminder of how easily and quickly both national and international important heritage buildings, which have stood for hundreds of years, can be lost in a single day. Challenges of heritage fire protection are many and varied. Materials of construction and wall linings are often combustible, there can be an absence of fire compartmentation, and alteration over time can create voids and cavities in which fire can spread and develop unnoticed. For attending fire and rescue

services, the complexities can be very onerous too. Against the background of a quickly developing fire, they have to assemble and navigate teams with specialist access equipment through potentially narrow and crowded city streets, to fight an established fire – high in the eaves of the building. In this case, with potentially

simultaneous demands to save life, salvage historic content and save the building, the challenges are enormous where the structural stability of the building cannot be assured. Dr Jim Glockling, the FPA’s technical director, commented:

‘It could be considered amazing

that anything was saved, but this will not be by accident. It is likely the French fire services would have prepared for and rehearsed for this event many times over the years, and whilst the resulting outcome may look quite devastating, there will certainly be more fabric to rebuild from, going forward, as a result of this pre-planning.’ An obvious feature of the fire is

the scaffolding silhouetted against the flames, suggesting an ongoing major refurbishment. Building works of any type present a period of heightened risk from fire, and it will be interesting to see if this played any role in the fire starting. During refurbishment, it is not uncommon

for hot work activities that produce sparks or use flame to be prevalent when metal is cut or welded, roofing materials laid, or paint removed. Presence of people in normally unoccupied areas can also increase risks from accidental and smoking related fire sources, as can the routing of temporary power supplies required to run equipment and lighting. Refurbishment might also require the disabling of installed fire protection systems for a period of time. Control of fire risks on construction

sites is well documented, with strict control of methods, training requirements, provision of firefighting equipment and safe systems of work. These are normally sufficient, but increasingly, where the consequences of a fire are great (financially, historically or a threat to adjacent buildings), it is becoming more commonplace to install temporary detection and suppression systems to cover the periods of heightened risk. It is often cited that the

installation of fixed fire suppression systems, such as sprinklers, are incompatible with historical building fabric preservation. There are actually very many sympathetic installations, and few issues have proved insurmountable – a small compromise to ensure survival for future generations to enjoy seems a small price to pay

12 MAY 2019

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