17 May 2012
Waveney MP Peter Aldous spoke of the importance of sprinklers in commercial premises at a seminar organised by Suffollk County Council on Friday 11th May.
Aldous a Member of the All Party Parliamentary Fire Safety and Rescue Group has spoken on the subject a number of times since the devastating fire at the Wessex Foods Factory in Lowestoft in Summer 2010.
Mr Aldous commenting after the speech said:
“This is an extremely important issue. Fires devastate commercial premises and cost people their jobs as well as put their lives at great risk. We should be doing all we can to ensure simple and cost-effective measures are put in place to mitigate the risk of fires.”
FULL SPEECH
Introduction
I’d like to start by saying how pleased I was to be invited to this very important event here in Suffolk. Cllr Spence and I have met at several events focussing on sprinklers and I would like to thank Colin for setting the scene of the day with his opening address.
A number of you in this room will probably wonder where my interest in fire sprinkler systems comes from.
It started in 2010 following a very serious fire that took place in commercial premises in Lowestoft – in my constituency. Thankfully there were no casualties but if sprinklers had been installed, the significant impact and dramatic upheaval that subsequently affected many people would have been avoided.
The Wessex Fire
Wessex Foods was a large 5000 square metres (that’s nearly 54,000 square feet) food warehouse and factory located on the South Lowestoft Industrial Estate. The factory employed about 150 people who processed raw meat into burgers, mainly for Burger King. At the time of the fire the warehouse was 80% full; it was effectively a large industrial freezer containing 1000 tonnes of beef, lamb and pork.
At about 6.30 pm on Sunday 14 July 2010, firefighters from the local fire station were called to a fire at the site. Shortly after this time I myself walked out of the Beccles Sports Centre some 10 miles away after a game of squash. Even by then there was a strange smell in the air.
The fire had started as a result of an electrical fault in a cold storage unit. The factory was occupied at the time, the fire was spotted in its very early stages and the fire service was immediately called. The fire station, on Stradbroke Road, is just a mile away and firefighters arrived in only a few minutes. Unfortunately, the contents of the building - and the sandwich panel construction that is hazardous to firefighters - meant that the fire had already developed to such an extent that they were unable to enter the building to try to safely extinguish it. Very quickly the building was completely engulfed by flames and over the course of the next few days it was totally destroyed. In the end firefighters were at the scene for 10 days ensuring that the fire was fully and safely extinguished.
At its height, 14 fire engines and 80 firefighters were at the fire, and over the course of those ensuing 10 days almost every firefighter in Suffolk attended the scene.
The impact on the local community was profound. A factory that had been in operation for 30 years has now been permanently closed and razed to the ground and 150 people lost their jobs. Despite the size of the buildings, its method of construction and the use to which it was put, sprinklers had not been fitted. If they had been the outcome would have been very different.
Of course, the fire would have still started and it would have grown in size. However once the fire had reached a certain temperature it would have triggered the nearest sprinkler head into operation. This would have sprayed water onto the fire. At this time the firefighters would have been called to the fire. When they arrived 2 firefighters would have put on their breathing apparatus sets and entered the building with a hose reel. The fire would have been quickly extinguished, the paperwork completed with the responsible Wessex person on site, and the firefighters would have been back at the fire station within an hour. Wessex Foods would then have continued to operate almost uninterrupted by the inconvenience of a relatively minor fire.
Implications of such fires
The implications of fires of this nature are far reaching. Beyond the immediate fire and job losses they also impact on the wider local economy; with adjacent businesses unable to get to work and those supporting businesses in the supply chain unable to take in or despatch goods. There is an impact on the environment with air qualify affected by the toxic smoke and gases with water courses being contaminated by fire water run off. With the Wessex fire 52 million litres of clean water was used to control the fire; there is also rodent infestation, and of course the dramatic impact on families when jobs are lost.
From all the fires that take place across the UK there is an increasing body of evidence that demonstrates the real benefits that come from sprinklers operating to contain fires. As an example, earlier this year at an Asda store in Llanelli, South Wales, a deliberate fire took hold very quickly while the store was still open. The sprinkler system operated exactly as designed and with assistance from the Fire Service, who arrived very speedily, the fire was quickly extinguished.
Neighbouring stores were protected from the fire and experienced no loss of business, and the Asda store, despite suffering quite extensive smoke damage, was able to open for business the following day. Of course it’s impossible to say for certain what would have happened in the absence of sprinklers but, experience suggests that there is a good chance the whole store would have been lost. There are many examples of where this type of total loss has happened.
Reasons why the current system should be reviewed
I do believe that there are compelling reasons why the current approach to sprinklers should be reviewed.
1. Where sprinklers are installed, there is a dramatic reduction in fatalities and injuries. Indeed, there has never been a multiple fire death incident anywhere in the world in a building fitted with a sprinkler system that has been designed to the appropriate standard for the purpose intended.
2. Wandering off the commercial case for a moment, there is also a need to have regard to demographic changes. People are living longer, and older people are particularly vulnerable to the ravages of fire. They may not be able to evacuate a building as quickly as young people. Those who suffer from dementia face added challenges. As a nation we are encouraging older people to continue living in their homes longer. I support this, but we need to ensure that elderly people, especially those living alone, are provided with an appropriate level of protection.
3. There has, in the past, been concern about the reliability and cost of sprinklers. However, in recent years there have been significant advances in both design and reducing costs. The cost of installing sprinklers is now between 1% and 2% of the cost of a building whilst the likelihood of a sprinkler going off accidentally is now estimated to be of the order of 16 million to 1.
It is often the case that the cost of sprinklers can be offset against other freedoms and benefit that their installation may bring, with architects being able to make better use of space.
4. It is important to have regard to the views and needs of the fire service. Firefighters do a great job; often in hazardous and dangerous circumstance. We owe it to them to reduce risk as far as reasonably possible.
With fire service budgets and resources coming under increasing pressure, it is important to focus on measures that make their jobs easier and communities safer.
I am mindful that in rural counties, such as Suffolk, we are reliant on a combination of full time crews and on-call crews in market towns. As work patterns change, recruitment of on-call firefighters is becoming more difficult. We thus need to ensure that we reduce the risk of major incidents wherever possible.
It is also important for Government to listen to local fire chiefs and fire authorities. They are the people on the ground with first-hand experience, who invariably do know best, and they advocate more widespread use of sprinklers. In the past year, not only Suffolk but Fire Services in Norfolk, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Cornwall and Humberside have demanded a more pro-active approach with regard to their installation.
Sprinklers also provide a degree of protection for firefighters in the course of their firefighting duties. There have been a number of firefighter deaths in recent years in buildings that would have benefited from having sprinklers. I won’t go through them all but Fleur Lombard was the first female firefighter to be killed on peacetime duty when she was caught in a flashover just feet from safety at a large fire in a supermarket in Bristol in 1996. Colleagues will perhaps be more familiar with the 4 firefighters who were killed in a large warehouse fire in Warwickshire in 2007; again in an unsprinklered building.
I’m sure we’ll all agree that firefighter safety is a very important part of the case for sprinklers.
Conclusion
I’ll now draw to a close. For commercial and industrial premises, two issues need to be addressed:
1. First, we find ourselves out of step with many other countries. In England, only buildings of more than 20,000 square metres (215,000 square feet) are required to be fitted with sprinklers. In Scotland that figure is 14,000 square metres; while in Germany it is 1,800 square metres (19,300 square feet). If we had been in line with the European average, the devastation caused by the Wessex fire in Lowestoft would have been avoided.
2. Secondly, up to now there has been too little focus in determining policy on the business disruption that arises from a major fire. In these difficult and uncertain economic times this is something that we can ill afford. Some 85% of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) that suffer a serious fire either never recover or cease trading within 18 months.
It is important that the Government reviews the new and compelling evidence on sprinklers that is becoming available. This should be taken fully into account in the review of Part B of the Building Regulations due next year in 2013. It is important that this review takes place on time and is not delayed.
This year is the bicentenary of the installation of the first sprinkler system in Britain in the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. Some might say that not much progress has been made in 200 years: I would say that now is the time to redouble our efforts; to save lives, to protect the vulnerable, to protect the economy and the environment and to reduce the social and personal consequences of these devastating fires.
Thank you for listening.
Aldous a Member of the All Party Parliamentary Fire Safety and Rescue Group has spoken on the subject a number of times since the devastating fire at the Wessex Foods Factory in Lowestoft in Summer 2010.
Mr Aldous commenting after the speech said:
“This is an extremely important issue. Fires devastate commercial premises and cost people their jobs as well as put their lives at great risk. We should be doing all we can to ensure simple and cost-effective measures are put in place to mitigate the risk of fires.”
FULL SPEECH
Introduction
I’d like to start by saying how pleased I was to be invited to this very important event here in Suffolk. Cllr Spence and I have met at several events focussing on sprinklers and I would like to thank Colin for setting the scene of the day with his opening address.
A number of you in this room will probably wonder where my interest in fire sprinkler systems comes from.
It started in 2010 following a very serious fire that took place in commercial premises in Lowestoft – in my constituency. Thankfully there were no casualties but if sprinklers had been installed, the significant impact and dramatic upheaval that subsequently affected many people would have been avoided.
The Wessex Fire
Wessex Foods was a large 5000 square metres (that’s nearly 54,000 square feet) food warehouse and factory located on the South Lowestoft Industrial Estate. The factory employed about 150 people who processed raw meat into burgers, mainly for Burger King. At the time of the fire the warehouse was 80% full; it was effectively a large industrial freezer containing 1000 tonnes of beef, lamb and pork.
At about 6.30 pm on Sunday 14 July 2010, firefighters from the local fire station were called to a fire at the site. Shortly after this time I myself walked out of the Beccles Sports Centre some 10 miles away after a game of squash. Even by then there was a strange smell in the air.
The fire had started as a result of an electrical fault in a cold storage unit. The factory was occupied at the time, the fire was spotted in its very early stages and the fire service was immediately called. The fire station, on Stradbroke Road, is just a mile away and firefighters arrived in only a few minutes. Unfortunately, the contents of the building - and the sandwich panel construction that is hazardous to firefighters - meant that the fire had already developed to such an extent that they were unable to enter the building to try to safely extinguish it. Very quickly the building was completely engulfed by flames and over the course of the next few days it was totally destroyed. In the end firefighters were at the scene for 10 days ensuring that the fire was fully and safely extinguished.
At its height, 14 fire engines and 80 firefighters were at the fire, and over the course of those ensuing 10 days almost every firefighter in Suffolk attended the scene.
The impact on the local community was profound. A factory that had been in operation for 30 years has now been permanently closed and razed to the ground and 150 people lost their jobs. Despite the size of the buildings, its method of construction and the use to which it was put, sprinklers had not been fitted. If they had been the outcome would have been very different.
Of course, the fire would have still started and it would have grown in size. However once the fire had reached a certain temperature it would have triggered the nearest sprinkler head into operation. This would have sprayed water onto the fire. At this time the firefighters would have been called to the fire. When they arrived 2 firefighters would have put on their breathing apparatus sets and entered the building with a hose reel. The fire would have been quickly extinguished, the paperwork completed with the responsible Wessex person on site, and the firefighters would have been back at the fire station within an hour. Wessex Foods would then have continued to operate almost uninterrupted by the inconvenience of a relatively minor fire.
Implications of such fires
The implications of fires of this nature are far reaching. Beyond the immediate fire and job losses they also impact on the wider local economy; with adjacent businesses unable to get to work and those supporting businesses in the supply chain unable to take in or despatch goods. There is an impact on the environment with air qualify affected by the toxic smoke and gases with water courses being contaminated by fire water run off. With the Wessex fire 52 million litres of clean water was used to control the fire; there is also rodent infestation, and of course the dramatic impact on families when jobs are lost.
From all the fires that take place across the UK there is an increasing body of evidence that demonstrates the real benefits that come from sprinklers operating to contain fires. As an example, earlier this year at an Asda store in Llanelli, South Wales, a deliberate fire took hold very quickly while the store was still open. The sprinkler system operated exactly as designed and with assistance from the Fire Service, who arrived very speedily, the fire was quickly extinguished.
Neighbouring stores were protected from the fire and experienced no loss of business, and the Asda store, despite suffering quite extensive smoke damage, was able to open for business the following day. Of course it’s impossible to say for certain what would have happened in the absence of sprinklers but, experience suggests that there is a good chance the whole store would have been lost. There are many examples of where this type of total loss has happened.
Reasons why the current system should be reviewed
I do believe that there are compelling reasons why the current approach to sprinklers should be reviewed.
1. Where sprinklers are installed, there is a dramatic reduction in fatalities and injuries. Indeed, there has never been a multiple fire death incident anywhere in the world in a building fitted with a sprinkler system that has been designed to the appropriate standard for the purpose intended.
2. Wandering off the commercial case for a moment, there is also a need to have regard to demographic changes. People are living longer, and older people are particularly vulnerable to the ravages of fire. They may not be able to evacuate a building as quickly as young people. Those who suffer from dementia face added challenges. As a nation we are encouraging older people to continue living in their homes longer. I support this, but we need to ensure that elderly people, especially those living alone, are provided with an appropriate level of protection.
3. There has, in the past, been concern about the reliability and cost of sprinklers. However, in recent years there have been significant advances in both design and reducing costs. The cost of installing sprinklers is now between 1% and 2% of the cost of a building whilst the likelihood of a sprinkler going off accidentally is now estimated to be of the order of 16 million to 1.
It is often the case that the cost of sprinklers can be offset against other freedoms and benefit that their installation may bring, with architects being able to make better use of space.
4. It is important to have regard to the views and needs of the fire service. Firefighters do a great job; often in hazardous and dangerous circumstance. We owe it to them to reduce risk as far as reasonably possible.
With fire service budgets and resources coming under increasing pressure, it is important to focus on measures that make their jobs easier and communities safer.
I am mindful that in rural counties, such as Suffolk, we are reliant on a combination of full time crews and on-call crews in market towns. As work patterns change, recruitment of on-call firefighters is becoming more difficult. We thus need to ensure that we reduce the risk of major incidents wherever possible.
It is also important for Government to listen to local fire chiefs and fire authorities. They are the people on the ground with first-hand experience, who invariably do know best, and they advocate more widespread use of sprinklers. In the past year, not only Suffolk but Fire Services in Norfolk, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Cornwall and Humberside have demanded a more pro-active approach with regard to their installation.
Sprinklers also provide a degree of protection for firefighters in the course of their firefighting duties. There have been a number of firefighter deaths in recent years in buildings that would have benefited from having sprinklers. I won’t go through them all but Fleur Lombard was the first female firefighter to be killed on peacetime duty when she was caught in a flashover just feet from safety at a large fire in a supermarket in Bristol in 1996. Colleagues will perhaps be more familiar with the 4 firefighters who were killed in a large warehouse fire in Warwickshire in 2007; again in an unsprinklered building.
I’m sure we’ll all agree that firefighter safety is a very important part of the case for sprinklers.
Conclusion
I’ll now draw to a close. For commercial and industrial premises, two issues need to be addressed:
1. First, we find ourselves out of step with many other countries. In England, only buildings of more than 20,000 square metres (215,000 square feet) are required to be fitted with sprinklers. In Scotland that figure is 14,000 square metres; while in Germany it is 1,800 square metres (19,300 square feet). If we had been in line with the European average, the devastation caused by the Wessex fire in Lowestoft would have been avoided.
2. Secondly, up to now there has been too little focus in determining policy on the business disruption that arises from a major fire. In these difficult and uncertain economic times this is something that we can ill afford. Some 85% of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) that suffer a serious fire either never recover or cease trading within 18 months.
It is important that the Government reviews the new and compelling evidence on sprinklers that is becoming available. This should be taken fully into account in the review of Part B of the Building Regulations due next year in 2013. It is important that this review takes place on time and is not delayed.
This year is the bicentenary of the installation of the first sprinkler system in Britain in the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. Some might say that not much progress has been made in 200 years: I would say that now is the time to redouble our efforts; to save lives, to protect the vulnerable, to protect the economy and the environment and to reduce the social and personal consequences of these devastating fires.
Thank you for listening.
