New planning requirements on fire safety for high-rise residential buildings came into force on August 1st and require developers to consider fire safety at the earliest stages of planning. While we understand this is a starting point on the road to a safer built environment, what does this mean for other buildings such as those in the industrial and commercial sector which have similar challenges when it comes to fire safety? Planning Gateway One is the first of a series of ‘gateway points’ and a key measure to ensure high-rise developments consider fire safety at the earliest stages of planning. It comes in response to Dame Judith Hackitt’s Review of Building Regulations, which was commissioned by the government following the Grenfell tragedy. As part of this, developers of higher risk buildings will need to submit a fire statement which sets out fire safety considerations specific to the development before planning permission can be granted. A higher risk building is classed as any building which is 18 metres or more in height and contains two or more dwellings or educational accommodation. The concept of a fire statement within the new planning gateways is a positive step, as it ensures that the thinking on fire safety is included at an early stage. Whilst we understand government wanting to be proportionate, the BSA’s view has always been that this should happen for a range of buildings. It ties to the thinking on being clear on outcomes in the event of a fire. It is also an opportunity for clarity and to avoid a gap between the parties involved. However, as we view this change, as we have stated before, our long-term concern is that this fosters a two-tier system. The implication being that those outside the scheme perhaps need less attention and this will pose challenges as it will offer opportunities to play the system. Clearly fire safe design should not be an afterthought and is essential for all building types. While the intention is for hotels and care homes to be added down the line, the risk of loss of life and property inherent in many other building types is also too high. It is also important to point out that the system is predicated on the existing (i.e. old) classification of buildings and we are building differently now, both in techniques and materials, and using buildings differently too. Bluntly, the nature of risk will continue to evolve as will the hazards these buildings will pose, especially as they age, so we should ensure that all buildings are safe throughout their lifespan. Whilst we understand these changes are a starting point, all buildings, including high-rise will need such a strategy. This will be important to all people seeking to understand the direction the design is taking. Similarly, it will inform those seeking to manage the building when it is in use. I understand government wants to focus in a certain area, but do we really think we do not have similar challenges in other buildings?

Construction technology specialists, Waterguard and Ramtech, have announced plans to interlink their leak and fire detection systems in a bid to improve efficiencies on construction sites across the globe. The complete solution will enable Waterguard’s series 7 leak detection device to ‘talk’ to Ramtech’s REACT platform – a cloud-based solution which raises alerts in real time, sending notifications straight to the people who can act on them. When combined with Ramtech’s range of wireless emergency alarms, the technology will provide a cost-effective solution for commercial and residential construction projects – as well as adding a level of accountability throughout various stages of development. Popular on multi-residential and commercial schemes, the technology forms an integral part of the construction phase – often specified by the developer or insurance company. Adam Jurka, UK Sales Manager at Ramtech, explained: “Construction sites are, by their very nature, dangerous places to work, and with the complex demands of modern projects, it’s vital to safeguard staff, property and equipment. By partnering with Waterguard, we have extended our service portfolio to offer a holistic monitoring system which delivers genuine peace of mind – and protection.” Claire Mason, general manager at Waterguard, added: “Incoming leak detection and fire safety is a stipulation of any construction project and Waterguard exists to shield every building – and its owner – from the damage and expense which comes with burst and leaking pipes. “Offering both firms’ technology in a single interface – and one which is proven within our marketplace – saves developers time and money, Construction Insurance Risk Engineers Group (CIREG) compliance, as well as providing an opportunity to develop unique systems to meet clients’ specific requirements.” Ramtech is a £12 million turnover company with offices in the Nottingham and the US, while Yorkshire-headquartered Waterguard is the UK’s leading manufacturer and supplier of affordable water leak detection systems.

In a post-Covid world, the need to consider the overall sustainability of the built environment in order to make sure we build and renovate in a low carbon and circular way will require all stakeholders to build better. Historically, actions we take in the name of sustainability have created some challenges from a fire perspective. Not that sustainability was wrong, but we need to think of the impact of these actions, particularly the impact on fire. There have been instances in the past decade where the construction sector has been so concerned with sustainability, safety and resilience has been sometimes overlooked.  A recent fire that destroyed a motorcycle museum in Austria that was lauded for its green credentials made me think of this again. When I looked at the Austrian fire, I kept running into images of a similar structure here in England, the Carbon Neutral Laboratory in Nottingham.  It too was largely complete and built with excellent sustainability credentials, but then destroyed by fire. The timber construction, so prized for its sustainability credits, meant the building was vulnerable to such a fire, especially as the building did not have active fire protection. This new fire in Austria struck a chord with me as articles talked of rebuilding a similar structure. The laboratory in Nottingham was rebuilt in line with regulations but using the same design principle and materials as before and according to contractor Morgan Sindall, is “indistinguishable” from the previous building. There was no increase in fire resilience and no active fire protection. Imagine my dismay on reading about this building and its fine green credentials. The very same building went on to win the ‘Sustainability Project of the Year’ at the annual Building Awards. Organised by Building Magazine, the awards recognise the best of the industry with the rebuilt laboratory praised for its sustainability credentials and carbon savings. Let me line this out: the ‘Sustainability Project of the Year is a project that burnt completely to the ground and then needed to be rebuilt; a building fire that could be seen for miles; a building fire that required over 60 firefighters to tackle and use thousands of litres of water to quell; a building that required what was left of the structure to be removed and would need to be disposed of by specialist contractors; a building that required materials to be procured again, shipped to site again and erected by scores of contractors…again. This is the ‘Sustainability Project of the Year’? A simple search on the internet revealed that this is not the only sustainability award that this large university laboratory has been shortlisted for. The fire and its impacts are all but a footnote in the story. It raises the question of how sustainable such a project can be when one considers the impact of fire; how the issue of fire could be addressed and whether fire should be more of a factor in that measure of sustainability. So how can this be? It is simple. None of the metrics that define prized sustainability awards consider fire or its impact. A building that burns to the ground and needs to be rebuilt does not incur any penalty in these schemes. Fire is simply an issue that is not covered in those scoring schemes or it would seem in the judging panels for sustainability ratings and prizes. Only last year, Premier Inn was granted planning permission to replace a hotel that was largely destroyed by fire in the summer of 2019, despite the efforts of 60 firefighters. The event disrupted local roads, businesses and stretched resources. There were no sprinklers in the building and the damage was so extensive the local fire and rescue service were unable to conclude on the cause. There are no sprinklers noted in the planned building to aid with resilience to fire. They are not a feature of the regulatory guidance. However, the planning details for the new hotel note that it will have a BREEAM ‘Very good’ rating by achieving more than a 40 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions over and above the standards set in prior Building Regulations. The aspects of fire safety are noted as being covered separately by Building Regulations – the same Building Regulations which are currently under review. Isn’t it time that we also reviewed how we define sustainability and considered fire as part of this? For more information about the Business Sprinkler Alliance visit www.business-sprinkler-alliance.org

In a post-Covid world, governments are being urged by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) to implement deep building renovation and performance standards for newly constructed buildings into pandemic recovery packages.  While reducing energy demand and carbon emissions through the use of natural construction materials, greater insulation and renewables will be the way forward, the aspect of fire resilience is often overlooked. It should not be. Losing the materials and building usability in a fire will result in valuable resources taken to rebuild them. A holistic approach that addresses sustainability and fire resilience will be needed to deliver these outcomes with active fire protection playing a key role in this resilience. According to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) report[1], when adding emissions from the building construction industry on top of operational emissions, the built environment sector accounted for 38 per cent of total global energy-related CO2 emissions. Pre-pandemic building emissions from the built environment in 2019 were noted to reach their highest level. Action is needed if we are to meet the aspiration of net zero carbon by 2050. The drive to preserve resources will mean a building will no longer follow the traditional linear model of ‘take, make, dispose’, but would be circular and built with reused materials and/or more organic (bio) materials. Buildings will also be able to be taken apart and deconstructed. Furthermore, a building will need to be flexible and adaptable to the short term whilst being built for the long term when considering its internal use. They will also need to be smart and connected, using sensors to determine efficiency operations and user experience. We will need to consider a building more as a system and an asset where the value is in its efficiency, flexibility and re-usability. Protecting that reusability will therefore become key to a building’s sustained value. Losing the materials and the building usability in a fire will see it taken out of the cycle – the result will be a valuable resource taken to rebuild them and increasing lifecycle costs as was noted by a study by FM Global.[2] Therefore, a holistic approach that addresses sustainability and fire resilience will be needed to deliver these outcomes. This will mean a shift in regulatory thinking too. The pursuit of green For many years now the construction industry has started this journey pursuing sustainable and green construction. This has been supported by government regulations, incentives, certification schemes and the credits within them. One of the most obvious items across Europe is the drive to use more natural products. For example, the use of timber is considered to be more sustainable for certain buildings than other traditional methods of construction. However, we also know these materials burn. High profile fire events have raised questions around the detailing and resilience of buildings where natural products are used as a structural material. There is a clear need for research in this area but also thinking in terms of what this means for long term sustainability. Fires in new buildings with high-level ratings in green certification schemes have occurred. Some have been completely destroyed by fire, meaning their potential saving and green credentials are gone. Valuable resources are needed to recreate them, and their function has been interrupted for several months, if not years. Some see this as a signal that fire safety regulations deliver the wrong outcome for sustainability and others that there is a blind spot in certification schemes. This is neatly illustrated by the Carbon Neutral laboratory in Nottingham, UK which was constructed using mass timber but destroyed shortly before it was completed in 2014. When it was rebuilt following the fire it was in line with regulations; it followed the original design and there was no increase in fire resilience – no active fire protection. The rebuild was showered with shortlisting for awards relating to its green credentials. Somehow the resources lost in the original fire did not matter or count. The original fire was consigned to history and had no bearing on the claims for the efficiency and carbon neutral credentials. Active fire protection does not feature in this discussion. Instead, it is assigned to mirroring the state fire regulations in differing countries where the focus is on safety and limiting conflagration. A recent update on a study from 2015 by the Fire Protection Research Foundation summarises this by looking at the challenges that need further research. [3] Active fire protection Active protection systems such as sprinklers are part of the building system and add to their overall carbon emissions. However, before dismissing active fire protection because of these emissions their benefits need to be weighed. Studies show their benefits in minimising the impact of fire and emissions. [4] A future view of the world wherein protecting the hard-won resources so that they can be used and reused leads to a path where minimising fire incidents will be important. Active protection systems will increasingly make sense for this reason. They will also make sense when thinking of the desire for buildings that can be flexible in use throughout their life. The whole life cost of a building and its value will be tied to both these concepts. That said active fire protection systems will need to continue to adapt to demonstrate their improving whole life costs and sustainability credentials too. This will require adapting test regimes, increased recycling of water and perhaps new technology to improve their already high effectiveness. In a world where sustainability is key, a disposable building will no longer be the ‘right thinking’. I would contend that a sprinklered one will be. For more information visit www.business-sprinkler-alliance.org

In early April, when industrial fires broke out in two different locations, they both had the same devastating outcome. On the 10th April, a fire started in a furniture factory in County Antrim damaging the building. Two days later, a fire swept through a bedmaking factory in Dewsbury. Neither building contained a sprinkler system and both businesses are now counting the cost of the damage and dealing with the disruption to their livelihoods. Once again, we must question the understanding of the vulnerability to such fires and the gap in regulations. The fire at Abbey Upholsterers in Carrickfergus started in the early hours of Saturday and completely ravaged a major part of 6,000m2 industrial building, despite the efforts of 70 firefighters from the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service. Local roads were closed and residents were asked to close their windows due to smoke. The deputy mayor of the local council expressed his shock at the event as the business is an important local employer, supplying furnishing products to hotels across the UK and Ireland. In Dewsbury on Monday 12th April, eight fire engines and two aerial appliances from West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service spent several hours putting out a blaze at the 2,800m2 Matza factory, with smoke plumes that could be seen as far away as Huddersfield. The local family-run bedmaking business employed 50 workers, who like the company, face an uncertain future.  In both cases, these are industrial buildings that have no guidance for compartment size limits or the need for sprinklers. The Fire Safety Building Regulations (FSBR) guidance envisages unlimited size industrial buildings. In the case of warehouses they can be 14 – 20,000m2 in footprint and in many cases up to 18m tall, without incurring guidance for subdivision or sprinklers. Such buildings are truly enormous, roughly six times the size of your average out-of-town DIY store. But the FSBR makes no consideration for the protection of property or indeed the minimising of the spread of fire within the building. The building will survive for the period it takes to get people out, after which we transition into a period where the inherent resilience diminishes. They have physical limitations when it comes to firefighting due to their compartment size. There is a twisted logic that says the building is disposable in the event of fire.  Industrial fires such as these once again highlight the rationale for greater consideration of property protection alongside life safety as a reasonable requirement. Such an expectation would result in more buildings being designed to be resilient to disproportionate damage, using combinations of passive and active fire safety measures. The BSA believes that sprinkler systems would be a major part of this change and should be considered more readily as a viable option right across the built environment, whether it is a care home, block of flats, hospital, school, retail or leisure facility or a commercial and industrial building. We must always be thankful when a fire is contained and extinguished with no loss of life, but it is not enough. Lives are still affected regardless, and we must strive to minimise the effect that fire has in all circumstances. When we minimise fire spread we not only protect lives, we protect property, businesses and jobs. A properly controlled fire can be the difference between a building requiring renovation or demolition. Halting the spread of fire when it is first detected is the best way to limit damage and minimise costs and impacts. Sprinklers have been shown to contain, control or extinguish fires in 99% of cases1. The impacted business can be operational within hours, avoiding the economic and social costs.  Given the availability of solutions, it begs the question as to why do we continue to repeat the same actions over and over again and expect different results? We need to break the chain and have the discussion on minimising fire damage and property protection for the benefit of our wider communities, the environment, longer-term business security, and the mutual benefits it will bring. For more information about the BSA visit the www.business-sprinkler-alliance.org 1Efficiency and Effectiveness of Sprinkler Systems in the United Kingdom: An Analysis from Fire Service Data – Optimal Economics May 2017

Emergency services were called to a 19-storey tower-block over the weekend when a fire broke out at New Providence Wharf development, near Canary Wharf, which reportedly had cladding similar to that found on Grenfell Tower. So far, it appears no lives were lost, but according to the London Fire Brigade (LFB), two adults were taken to hospital to be treated for the effects of smoke inhalation with a further 38 adults and four children receiving treatment at the scene. The fire broke out just days before the cladding had been scheduled to be removed. Roughly 22% of the building’s facade features aluminium composite material polyethylene (ACM PE) cladding panels, which were found to be a key factor in the 2017 Grenfell fire that killed 72 people. Apsana Begum, the Poplar & Limehouse Labour MP, commented: “For years now, constituents at New Providence Wharf, where there are 1,500 apartments, have been left vulnerable and unsafe due to numerous fire safety and building safety defects and the fact that ACM cladding remains on these buildings. “The fire this morning shows just how serious this issue is and why constituents have been right to continue to raise alarm bells for so many months. ‘The developer Ballymore have promised action, but to date, constituents have not received information on fire engineer reports and details of any remediation works.” In a statement, developers Ballymore said the safety of its residents was “paramount”, but argued that the cladding “played no part” in the fire: “A fire broke out in an apartment on the 8th floor of a building in the New Providence Wharf development. Thanks to the rapid and professional response of the London Fire Brigade the fire was quickly contained, with all residents evacuated from the building in a timely manner, in accordance with the building’s fire safety protocols. Due to the fire brigade response and to the performance of the fire safety systems on the building, the fire damage was contained to one apartment and to two balconies of apartments above. Although we expect most residents to return to their homes this evening, Ballymore is providing accommodation in a nearby hotel for those who require it. “We understand how difficult and distressing today has been for our residents and we are grateful for the patience they have demonstrated. Our response team on the ground will continue to support them in any way we can. The cause of the fire has yet to be determined and we continue to work closely with the London Fire Brigade during their investigations. We can however confirm that the ACM cladding on the building did not combust and played no part in causing or facilitating the fire. Enabling works to remove the ACM cladding have been underway for two weeks prior to today’s incident. The works will recommence as soon as possible.” Besides the cladding, another disturbing element is that residents are reporting that there was no alarm and no reporting system. 33-year-old resident James said: “I didn’t know at first, when I opened my window this morning I could see and smell the smoke, it was thick black smoke, even at the side of the building, where I live. But what I don’t get is that there was no alarm, no alert, had I not opened my window I might not have clocked it. I’m not sure what’s going to happen, or how my flat looks, but I know for sure some people are going to be very unhappy and devastated when they see the damage to their flat.” Andrew, a 47-year old resident in the adjoining block, told reporters that he only found out when neighbours sounded the alarm from their balconies. “There was no functioning sprinkler system or fire alarm,” he said. “It was neighbours and the resident Whatsapp group which got people out. My understanding is there were one or two members of the waking watch knocking on doors, but this isn’t the solution to alerting a huge number of people to evacuate a building. We have known since 2017 that we have the same cladding as Grenfell, knowing we are risking our lives in the building.”

The recent discovery that the smoke control system on Grenfell Tower had been inoperative for over a year before the refurbishment and that the tenant management organisation (TMO) had known about it and done nothing to mitigate the risk for the building occupants came as no surprise to those of us within the industry. In our experience, it is common for clients to leave reported defects for many months before authorising corrective action. In their March 2020 Fire Engineering Thematic Technical Report that audited buildings with mechanical smoke ventilation systems, the London Fire Brigade found that 20% of systems inspected failed to operate which would indicate that the problem of defective smoke control provision may be widespread. There are some common themes for high rise residential buildings that can contribute to a catastrophic system failure of the type experienced at Grenfell Tower and below we look at these and offer advice on avoiding the common pitfalls. The availability of people on-site to complete regular tests as recommended by the Regulatory (Fire Safety) Reform Order (RRO) 2005 and safety operating instructions, details the requirement for the smoke control maintenance of life-safety systems but these can often be overlooked or not fully understood. The weekly and monthly checks will typically be carried out by general maintenance personnel (RP), who have received basic hands-on training from the manufacturer/installer of the system. For systems maintained by a competent organisation, they will at best be tested at six-month intervals during service visits. The reality is weekly and monthly tests are problematic, particularly for high-rise residential buildings where there is no on-site maintenance presence and as a result, the checks are frequently overlooked. This means that if a fault occurs during the period between visits, it may go undetected, and the system would remain inoperable until the next scheduled maintenance visit. Even when smoke control systems are equipped with visual and audible fault alarms, these are often ignored in residential buildings without on-site security personnel. Under this regime, there is a very real risk of system failure in an emergency. The competence of the contractor undertaking the annual maintenance. Neither of the organisations who were responsible for the maintenance of the Grenfell project were smoke control specialists, however, this is not unusual. A fire alarm or mechanical and electrical contractor is unlikely to have an appreciation of the smoke control strategy and understanding of the products installed, but often the smoke control maintenance is bundled in with other services like fire alarm or building management. This can result in a deterioration of systems over time as minor faults go unattended. Or unnoticed. Failure of the client to sanction rectification of defects. This may be a result of a failure to appreciate the seriousness of the system being inoperable or simply down to a lack of budget; however, it is not uncommon for reported faults to remain unattended for months, as was the case at Grenfell Tower. The following actions are recommended to ensure compliance and safety of occupants of high-rise residential buildings. Use a competent smoke control specialist. Ensure the smoke control system provider is accredited and has third-party certification, Group SCS would advise you choose a member of the SCA (Smoke Control Association). Regularly carry out safety checks. In addition to the minimum annual service by the specialist provider, they must also actively encourage short-term tests of the smoke control system, offering training to site personnel and a logbook so all checks can be recorded and monitored. Consider remote monitoring of smoke control systems where there is no onsite facility staff. We also recommend when there is no one available on-site to regularly monitor your smoke control systems, then remote monitoring is a reliable solution. Make sure all defects are fixed. Alarmingly it is not unusual for defects in the systems not to be fixed which is often due to budget restraints. This is a false economy. If a fire breaks out in a building that is under your control and the smoke control system fails, lives are at serious risk and you could face prosecution.