Tendering for smoke and fire safety systems is arguably one of the most complex processes in construction, but it needn’t be. The ultimate aim should be to have a compliant solution that prioritises safety to life above anything else; after all, a person dies every two days in a smoke
One of the UK’s leading fire door inspection organisations has warned of a “tragedy waiting to happen” after it revealed three-quarters of the fire doors inspected in the UK by its approved inspectors did not meet the required standard. The Fire Door Inspection Scheme (FDIS)’s data, based on more than
The government has announced it will not be implementing the recommendation for Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, instead opting to remain with the controversial ‘stay put’ policy. The government is facing criticism from across the fire safety sector, as well as from campaign groups and
Johnson Controls, the global leader for smart, healthy and sustainable buildings, is calling for organisations to take urgent action for safety compliance across high rise residential development during Home Fire Sprinkler Week. Now more than ever, the need for fire suppression and general safety in high-rise residential buildings is indisputable.
MAY MEANS CONSTRUCTION SAFETY THIS MAY, Construction Safety Week will join global businesses from across the sector to inspire everyone in the industry to be leaders in safety. James Pecz, global solutions marketing manager at Ramtech, discusses how technology is helping to support the construction industry to raise fire safety
NE & C Windows & Doors has secured exclusive access to state-of-the-art products and training after joining Reynaers Aluminium Ltd’s Fire Safety Partners Scheme. The Tyne and Wear based company joins a select group of members to qualify for the initiative which was launched in conjunction with Certifire and FIRAS.
A major fire that destroyed an unsprinklered recycling plant in Nottingham led to disruption in the local area, asbestos warnings and unnecessary damage to the environment. The fire on January 31st at Nottingham Recycling on Abbeyfield Road in Lenton required 60 firefighters, 12 appliances and specialist equipment including aerial ladder
FireAngel’s Co-founder and Chief Product Officer, Nick Rutter, shares his expert predictions for the year ahead Residents will need alternative strategies to the Waking Watch Relief Fund The Government has boosted the Waking Watch Relief Fund with an additional £27m to cover the cost of installing alarm systems in high-rise buildings with dangerous cladding, removing or reducing the need for waking watches. The
The Fire Brigades Union lawyer for the inquiry has placed central importance on the “agenda of deregulation, privatisation and marketisation” as causing the disaster. Martin Seaward said that an agenda “which encouraged companies to behave recklessly towards building safety” was “actively and, regrettably, deliberately created by central government”. The comments
A recent blog written by the Department for Education (DfE) highlighted some key points about fire safety in schools. While the article stressed the importance of ensuring all students and staff are safe at school, the author made some interesting claims which were misleading and need clarification. As we head
Tendering for smoke and fire safety systems is arguably one of the most complex processes in construction, but it needn’t be. The ultimate aim should be to have a compliant solution that prioritises safety to life above anything else; after all, a person dies every two days in a smoke related fire. But red tape and legislation have made the safety of building users less of a priority and over time, bad habits have become the norm, making the tendering process about a race to the bottom on price – and often, quality. To challenge this, SfS, part of Exyte Hargreaves, is sharing four steps to overhaul the tendering process to make it more efficient and result in solutions that are legally sound, which meet the requirements of the entire supply chain, and which put safety top of the list. 1 Consider the application of the building Smoke and fire safety products undergo rigorous testing when they’re installed to any application so when they fail, a lot of responsibility is placed on the manufacturer; the assumption is always that the fault must be product-based, and not whether the product in question was right for the application in the first place. After all, in most cases, once the system leaves the production line the manufacturer is unlikely to be involved in its use thereafter. Typically, it’s a fire consultant that should have the final say over what smoke and fire solution is installed to a building; this should be taken as gospel, they’re the experts. But in many cases contractors will de-spec and install a product of lower quality (and therefore cost) to secure the job. A fire consultant might step back in and challenge what’s been fitted, but they don’t often have the influence to reverse the decision. A building’s intended use should be the basis of every decision made in the specification and installation of smoke and fire safety solutions. This might vary, depending on at what RIBA stage the project is at when fire safety is eventually discussed. But each application will have unique requirements that should see everyone involved seek out the expertise of a smoke and fire expert; for example, does a building need a basic smoke vent, or does it require an engineered lobby smoke extract system with dampers on every floor suitably sized for the designed airflow? System pressure, the number of insulated blades, number of operations, whether the system is automatic or manually operated and so many more criteria should be individually analysed to determine which solution is best suited to the application in question. There is responsibility on everyone involved in the delivery of a building to critically challenge whether what’s specified is fit for purpose, but working with a specialist that is involved in every step of the fire safety strategy – design, manufacture and installation – can make that accountability less of a burden. 2 Get a smoke safety expert involved from the start Going down that route is advisable, and is something that should be at the very top of the agenda during the planning stages of any build, and every stage thereafter. Architects and designers are responsible for determining how a building will look and function – they’re not experts in fire safety, nor are they expected to be. On the other hand, building control and fire departments – those who are experts in fire safety, are rarely, if ever, involved in the upfront planning of a building. Why, then, hasn’t the industry taken steps to have a consisted thread of fire safety knowledge running throughout the delivery of every new building? It is only experts who live and breathe smoke and fire safety who will bring the relevant perspective required to ensure a fire safety system is compliant, suitable for the application and capable of saving lives should a fire occur. All too little, this vital information is omitted from a building spec and even if it is included, it’s often lacking the intricate detail needed to ensure anyone using the building in the future can be kept safe. Then, when a building is nearing completion and a fire specialist is brought in to assess the solution that’s been installed, it’s too late to implement a more suitable system. As experts in this field, we’re stepping up our own responsibility, ensuring we achieve strong relationships with parties at every level of the supply chain so we can provide that consistent thread of expertise. 3 Don’t focus on budget One of the other main reasons a building will be left with a less-than-suitable smoke and fire safety solution is due to budget. A quantity surveyor, for example, is unlikely to have the knowledge of the individual components of a fire safety system that make it both legally compliant and suitable to the individual application. So, if they’re presented with what appears to be two ‘like for like’ products that differ in price by a few hundred pounds, they’re inherently drawn towards the cheaper option. But it’s not very often that ‘like for like’ is exactly that. Our priority is to create solutions that specify to the correct criteria for each and every individual building we’re tasked with supporting. Often, that means being told we’re the most expensive of three different organisations tendering for a job, even though what the client sees in black and white appears to look the ‘same’. We use this as an opportunity to provide an education – are we comparing apples with apples? There aren’t actually huge swathes of differences in the fire safety products available on the market, so the price difference comes down to everything else we offer – ultimate compliancy, support throughout the entire design and build process, a solution that’s fit for purpose and a promise that we would never break specification to bring down costs if it meant putting people at risk. The tendering process should be really transparent, but it isn’t. It always leaves us
One of the UK’s leading fire door inspection organisations has warned of a “tragedy waiting to happen” after it revealed three-quarters of the fire doors inspected in the UK by its approved inspectors did not meet the required standard. The Fire Door Inspection Scheme (FDIS)’s data, based on more than 100,000 fire door inspections carried out by its approved inspectors in 2021, found that 75% of fire doors failed to meet the required standards, putting lives at risk in the event of a fire. Alarmingly, buildings that had the highest number of fire door inspection failures included healthcare buildings, local authorities and housing associations, and private housing. Given that these buildings’ fire doors are subject to higher use and traffic than other building types, regular inspection and maintenance is key to ensuring they remain fit for purpose throughout their lifespan. Louise Halton, FDIS Scheme Manager, said “With the vast majority of fire doors in the UK failing inspections, it’s sad to say that a tragedy is simply waiting to happen, especially so in buildings that are home to vulnerable residents. But this situation is entirely preventable and, at this stage, still reversible. A fit for purpose fire door can save lives, so now is the time for all of those responsible for fire safety to urgently inspect fire doors in their buildings and act immediately if faults are identified. “It’s crucial that reputable and trained fire door inspectors, such as those approved by the FDIS, carry out fire door inspections. However, the ongoing reporting of maintenance issues with fire doors is a role for us all – every building user should play a proactive role in reporting any faults to ensure they are quickly addressed so that the building’s safety is maintained.” The most common reasons for inspection failure – which can be a result of one or multiple issues – were excessive gaps between the door and the frame (77%), care and maintenance issues (54%), and issues over smoke sealing (37%). In almost a third (31%) of cases, inspections failed due to improper installation – meaning those doors were never fit to perform the task of holding back fire and smoke. The inspection data also revealed inspectors’ top three fire safety concerns as a lack of fire door maintenance, and poor knowledge of fire safety responsibilities and a limited understanding of the role fire doors play in keeping people safe by those responsible for building fire safety. “The issues surrounding the understanding and knowledge of those responsible for fire safety was also highlighted in the FDIS’ inspection data released in 2020 as a key concern,” added Ms Halton. “This clearly demonstrates the need for individuals throughout the building safety sector to have access to quality training, assessment and examination to ensure their knowledge is up to date, and that they understand the fundamental role of a fire door – which is only fit for purpose if it is maintained correctly and inspected regularly.” The positive news is that there is a will to improve. Since the introduction of the Building Safety Bill (now the Building Safety Act 2022), 77% of FDIS inspectors have seen an increase in demand for fire door inspections. This indicates the importance and effect of the legislation in encouraging building owners and fire safety professionals to take a more proactive approach to fire door safety and maintenance. The FDIS certified inspectors are uniquely trained to undertake fire door inspections and improve building fire safety. All approved inspectors have completed the FDIS certificated inspector training and onsite assessment, which provides an understanding of fire doors and their components, including testing and certification, regulations and standards, inspection, and maintenance. For more information about the FDIS and to find an approved FDIS Inspector, visit: https://fdis.co.uk/ Building Design and Construction Magazine | The Home of Construction & Property News
The government has announced it will not be implementing the recommendation for Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, instead opting to remain with the controversial ‘stay put’ policy. The government is facing criticism from across the fire safety sector, as well as from campaign groups and bereaved relatives of the Grenfell Tower residents, having previously promised to implement the inquiry’s recommendations in full. The Home Office published a consultation document which outlined their reasoning, stating that they believe it is not ‘proportionate’ to follow the recommendations and will continue to place its faith in ‘stay put’ advice in most buildings. The response also stated that there were “significant issues” with the “practicality, proportionality and safety” of PEEPS, and that “we are currently unable to mandate PEEPs in high-rise residential buildings.” The Home Office also said it intends to replace the proposal to require evacuation plans and PEEPs with “an alternative package of initiatives.” This goes against a recommendation from Phase 1 of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry – published in October 2019 – which advises the government to place a legal obligation on building owners to outline Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs) for residents in the event of a fire. Grenfell United, a campaign group for people affected by the fire, said: “We are enraged at the government, whose sole focus continues to be profit and not public safety. We’ve fought for years to create a legacy for our 72 loved ones, and to prevent another Grenfell. But five years on, the government has reverted back to the same policy in place before Grenfell. “This policy resulted in 41% of those living with disabilities dying at Grenfell. It left them with no personal evacuation plan and no means of escape. They didn’t stand a chance. This report is a disgrace. “Disabled people have the right to leave their homes safely. The government must implement the recommendation from the Phase 1 report of the Grenfell Inquiry and ensure personal evacuation plans for disabled residents.” In responding to the government’s PEEPs consultation, the Commissioner of London Fire Brigade, Andy Roe said: “It’s vitally important that people feel safe in their own homes and have certainty about how to leave their building in the event of a fire or other emergency. “PEEPs were a key recommendation from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and we want to work with government, communities, and other partners to make progress on evacuation plans. We will be responding to this consultation.” The Home Office has launched another consultation on Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing (EEIS), which would require designated “Responsible Persons of the highest risk buildings to assess the needs of their most vulnerable residents and consider what might ‘reasonably be done to mitigate any risks to fire safety.” A Home Office spokesperson said: “The Emergency Evacuation Information Sharing package we are consulting on would require those responsible for fire safety in higher risk buildings to properly assess the needs of the most vulnerable and take steps to mitigate any risks. “While the vast majority of buildings are completely safe, we are determined to do more to improve fire safety, which is why these landmark reforms will ensure mid and high-rise blocks are properly assessed for fire risks.” The inquiry published 46 recommendations in 2019, of which 21 have now been incorporated into law, according to the Home Office.
Johnson Controls, the global leader for smart, healthy and sustainable buildings, is calling for organisations to take urgent action for safety compliance across high rise residential development during Home Fire Sprinkler Week. Now more than ever, the need for fire suppression and general safety in high-rise residential buildings is indisputable. We need look no further than the cladding crisis to see the urgent need for legislation, building regulations, and standards to be upheld and revised where required. Keeping people and facilities safe from fire is a requirement for every building, facility, and premise, including high rise buildings. As with any built environment, there isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution. Developers need to find the right fire suppression solution to match the risk of a particular building, and the right partner to support this process. If these suppression solutions, such as sprinklers, are not properly installed and maintained, then they aren’t reliable to spring into action when an emergency strikes to save stock, equipment, and most importantly, lives. “We are seeing a cultural and regulatory shift, but there is still work to be done in not only setting standards, but also striving to exceed them. Ultimately, more needs to be done to raise awareness of the range of fire suppression solutions available and what they can do. The right solutions will not only add value to buildings, but also save lives.” said Adrian Kay, UK Head of Technical Compliance & Quality, Fire Suppression at Johnson Controls Ensuring fire safety compliance and suppression in even the most complex of high-rise residential developments may seem like a daunting task, but a safe building is one that brings multiple levels of safety and security together, at all times, in all places. Johnson Controls has put together the following five tips for good fire safety practice, and effective fire suppression: The Need to Use Experienced Engineers: Using experienced engineers and contractors is paramount, as a poor supplier choice leads to inexperienced sub-contractors carrying out work they cannot deliver safely, resulting in delays and potentially serious compliance risk. The Correct Contractor: When choosing a contractor, it is important to choose one that services to recognised standards and carries one of the industry-approved third-party certifications within its scope: LPS1048, FIRAS or IFC. Adhering to Regulations: Sprinklers in new high rise residential buildings over 11m is now a requirement, and every commercial or industrial property must have an individual who is responsible for fire safety, and it is their responsibility to make their premises compliant. Effective Installation: Many contractors are not used to high rise buildings and the complexity required in sprinkler installation, and this kind of expert knowledge is where third-party accredited contractors are essential. Sprinkler Maintenance: Best practice for sprinkler maintenance starts with weekly or monthly checks in-house, with experts employed on a quarterly, six-monthly or annual basis to ensure that systems are cared for and in good Building Design and Construction Magazine | The Home of Construction & Property News
MAY MEANS CONSTRUCTION SAFETY THIS MAY, Construction Safety Week will join global businesses from across the sector to inspire everyone in the industry to be leaders in safety. James Pecz, global solutions marketing manager at Ramtech, discusses how technology is helping to support the construction industry to raise fire safety standards. The first week of May plays host to some of the biggest events and awareness weeks for the construction sector, including Construction Safety Week 2022 (2 – 6 May) and the UK’s largest construction event UK Construction Week’ (3 – 5 May). With the spotlight firmly on the sector, it is a good opportunity to review the importance of continued progress and excellence in construction. A big part of this success is reliant on safety, which should underpin everything. Ensuring that all construction workers can return home safely and that under construction sites are well protected – from start to project completion – is paramount. At Ramtech, Internet of Things (IoT) wireless technology plays a key role in our approach to keeping construction sites safe. While there are many different safety risks on a site, our work for the construction industry primarily focuses on temporary fire safety and security solutions. Fire protection Busy workers on construction sites operating machinery are often close to sources of ignition, such as highly combustible materials and solvents. On top of this, fire could also happen during the construction phase as open sites are often more vulnerable to theft, vandalism, and arson. Further adding to this risk is the fact that typical building protection systems such as sprinklers, fire walls and wired detectors are not always in place until the final stages of construction. These issues are not unique to just one area and the global construction industry all face the threat of fire. Taking global action The common risk of fire means that as a sector we should all be raising standards by utilising the technology available to us. Relying on manual and outdated methods, such as using an air horn or shouting to raise the alarm is still a concern. In the US, many sites still choose to use air horns as an evacuation method on construction sites. However, this does come with disadvantages. Namely, an air horn cannot provide site-wide evacuation as it isn’t able to tell you where the fire is located, merely that there is a fire somewhere on the site. It can also be hard to distinguish the noise of an air horn above other background sounds on a site. Similarly, the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) still advises that ‘on small low risk sites the alarm may be raised by shouting’. The HSE does advise that ‘on high risk or larger sites a fixed and interconnected system (wired in or wireless) of call points and sounders will be required to provide an effective warning system’. Typically, a wired solution is usually the best form of protection on a completed site, due to the layout of the building being fixed and the access to power sorted. For construction sites that are constantly changing and that also do not have a reliable power source yet, the ability to have a flexible fire alarm solution that does not rely on a fixed location and can be moved or added to as needed is the ideal solution. Wireless solutions and IoT When considering the best ways to protect construction sites, it makes sense to use the best that technology has to offer. Our world is more connected than ever before, and this has helped to influence the next generation of wireless connected solutions. In fact, the IoT spans nearly 100 billion physical objects allowing them to communicate with each other. Due to this progress, wireless fire alarm systems have advanced greatly over the past few decades. Take our fully EN54-25 compliant WES3 24/7 fire alarm monitoring system for example; it can connect to our REACT platform, which is a cloud-based solution that raises alerts in real time, and is sent straight to the people who can act on them via a simple to use mobile app. Because the protection offered by technology like the WES3 is constant, this means that no matter the time or place the fire can be detected and communicated to personnel via the use of secure radio frequencies. With an unlimited number of units able to be used per site, more units can be added as the build progresses. Repeater units ensure the signal gets a boost on especially large sites. An emergency signal can be triggered automatically or manually from anywhere. This is all possible without wires or cables and without having to rely on the presence of workers to detect and extinguish fires. Technology like this is a gamechanger for the construction industry and will reduce risk and prevent incidents from occurring. As we consider how to better protect the safety of our sites from the risk of fire, I urge global professionals who are coming together in the name of construction safety and awareness this May to think carefully and look to embrace technology in a bid to raise industry safety standards. For more information about Ramtech’s construction solutions, please visit www.ramtechglobal.com
NE & C Windows & Doors has secured exclusive access to state-of-the-art products and training after joining Reynaers Aluminium Ltd’s Fire Safety Partners Scheme. The Tyne and Wear based company joins a select group of members to qualify for the initiative which was launched in conjunction with Certifire and FIRAS. The scheme requires fabricators and installers to achieve stringent first safety standards, which then allows access to the Reynaers’ range of market leading fire-resistant aluminium windows, doors, and curtain walling. This, in turn, offers assurance to customers and building occupants that fire safety requirements in product performance and installation have been met. Members also benefit from access to Reynaers’ unrivalled supply chain and training in specific fire safety products at the company’s head office in Belgium. To apply, fabricators and installers must prove they are accredited by independent fire safety bodies Certifire or FIRAS, respectively, have been trading for at least a year, and demonstrate a history of supplying fire safety products. John McComb, Technical Director at Reynaers, said: “We are delighted to welcome NE & C Windows & Doors Ltd to the Fire Safe Partners Scheme which enables the company to offer a high level of fire safety assurance and choice to its customers. “Glazing is a crucial consideration for fire safety in modern buildings and one that is just as important as the aesthetics of the system installed. Through our scheme, we also ensure that our partners are equipped with the right training to successfully fabricate and install our products. “Partnering with Certifire and FIRAS means that our Fire Safety Partners Scheme is of the highest integrity.” Ed Ramshaw, Managing Director at NE & C Windows & Doors Ltd, added: “Achieving this certification was a great accolade and a major part of our vision for the future. Reynaers’ comprehensive range of fire safe products will be an excellent addition to our already abundant offering while the diversification will enable us to reach new markets with a quality of product that logically sits alongside our other high specification products and suppliers. “We have been manufacturing aluminium bi folds, windows, curtain walling, and commercial systems for the past 10 years, so the next stage for us was to bring on board a cutting-edge collection of fire-resistant products including smoke vents. I found that Reynaers’ ethos very much reflected our outlook in business, so the scheme seemed a great fit for both parties. We are looking forward to a long and prosperous partnership.” As the certification for fabricators, Certifire assures performance, quality, reliability, and traceability of products and systems, while FIRAS endorses the competency of installers to fit and maintain systems to the required safety standards. Fabricators and installers who want to learn more about Reynaers’ Fire Safe Partners Scheme or who would like to register their interest in becoming a partner should visit: https://www.reynaers.co.uk/en-UK/reynaers-fire-safe-partners-scheme
A major fire that destroyed an unsprinklered recycling plant in Nottingham led to disruption in the local area, asbestos warnings and unnecessary damage to the environment. The fire on January 31st at Nottingham Recycling on Abbeyfield Road in Lenton required 60 firefighters, 12 appliances and specialist equipment including aerial ladder platforms, high volume pumps from Nottingham Fire and Rescue to tackle the blaze. While there were no reported injuries in the blaze and the surrounding businesses were not in use at the time, the impact on the local community and environment was significant with the closure of a major ‘A’ road, residents forced to close windows and doors due to harmful smoke and a number of measures employed to minimise the impact of pollution to the local environment. What remains of the circa 1700m2 building used to recycle waste cardboard will be demolished and disposed of. The fire at Nottingham Recycling centre was one of many recycling fires in the UK in the past 12 months. All were typified by large numbers of firefighters being required to contain a blaze where there was a presence of a high fire load due to highly combustible materials. Each event developed high volumes of smoke and contained harmful contaminants. Furthermore, fire water run-off needed to be monitored by the relevant agency and there is the environmental impact of disposing of the damaged properties and the costs, resources and materials required to repair and rebuild them. These fires not only pose an obvious danger to the health of those nearby, but they also have major environmental implications and significant costs to businesses due to property loss. Preventing large costly fires is possible through a combination of strategies. One of the most effective strategies is the use of sprinkler systems which contain and control fires before the Fire and Rescue Service arrives. They therefore minimise the wider impact of unmanageable fires, reducing costs to business and the economy as a whole. Importantly, by limiting any fire damage, they allow businesses to resume operations quickly, often within hours of the incident. This was adequately demonstrated by a fire at a Biffa waste site in Irlam in January 2021. Fire sprinklers fitted at the site activated, quickly putting the fire out and minimising the damage caused as a result of the incident. For more information about the BSA visit the www.business-sprinkler-alliance.org
FireAngel’s Co-founder and Chief Product Officer, Nick Rutter, shares his expert predictions for the year ahead Residents will need alternative strategies to the Waking Watch Relief Fund The Government has boosted the Waking Watch Relief Fund with an additional £27m to cover the cost of installing alarm systems in high-rise buildings with dangerous cladding, removing or reducing the need for waking watches. The additional funding, taking the total budget to £57m, will bring some relief to leaseholders living with the financial burden of waking watches and the emotional toll of waiting months, or years, for their buildings to be made safe. Questions remain, however, on whether the extended fund will stretch far enough and provide help to all those who need it. Currently, £24.1m from the Waking Watch Relief Fund has been approved for applications, covering 281 buildings across England.1 However, nearly 800 blocks of flats in England and Wales have waking watches in place, an 85% increase in less than a year, meaning the number of buildings failing safety inspections is growing faster than owners can make them safe.2 With limited waking watch relief funding available, thousands may be left paying for fire marshals to patrol blocks 24 hours a day, costing over £11,000 on average per building every month.3 In addition, those who fall outside of the fund may continue to face excessive costs. A waking watch is required when buildings have dangerous cladding or fire safety issues change the evacuation policy from stay put to simultaneous evacuation. However, the Government fund generally only covers the upfront capital costs of installing a fire safety system in buildings with unsafe cladding. Therefore, leaseholders impacted by non-cladding issues which render their buildings unsafe may continue to face ongoing waking watch costs and remediation bills. As it becomes clear that a change in fire safety strategy is essential, industry experts will continue to look at alternative strategies that can maximise fire safety while minimising costs. At FireAngel, this means ongoing development of connected technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) to help cut fire risks within the parameters of an existing budget, offering residents, building safety managers and landlords more intelligent ways to manage their properties. Looking to the future, a combination of IoT, robust fire detection and alert systems and evacuation plans could replace the need for waking watches completely, helping tenants who fall outside of the relief fund feel safe in their own homes. There will be a greater understanding of how connected data can improve residents’ quality of life Industry experts such as the Fire Industry Association (FIA) have started a productive and necessary dialogue around IoT in the fire industry. This year, its IoT report highlighted how IoT can and will impact us all – with estimates that 87% of businesses might be working with IoT in the future.4 Cutting-edge technology that remotely monitors the home environment 24/7 has the potential to prevent life-threatening events. Using remote alarm monitoring, IoT and predictive data analysis, connected safety technology has the potential to identify a fire risk before it escalates to a 999 call. Not only can the data monitored in real-time alert social landlords to the status of alarms in the property when they are triggered but also when they are removed or when they need to be replaced. Connection to the IoT could enable landlords to monitor important features such as the building’s age and condition and the wear and tear of electrical appliances. Being able to combine this information with data on individuals’ physical or mental status is also important. If a person has dementia, is partially sighted or uses a wheelchair, their ability to respond to a fire event may be limited. Beyond fire safety, we now have the technology to look at temperature and humidity within a property. As we look to the year ahead, there is the potential for integration of other care and protection technologies to look after the more vulnerable people in society and, ultimately, keep more people safe. Fire safety guidance will continue to evolve at a rapid pace, making future-proofing properties more important than ever before Following the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities’ response to the Government consultation on smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, people living in the social rented sector will soon be safer in their homes. Housing providers will be required by law to install smoke alarms in all social housing, and carbon monoxide alarms will have to be fitted in social and private rented properties where there is a fixed combustion appliance, excluding gas cookers. The regulation changes will also require carbon monoxide alarms to be fitted when new appliances such as gas boilers or fires are installed in any home. Additionally, the response to the consultation indicates that landlords, and housing providers in social and private rented sectors, will need to repair or replace smoke and carbon monoxide alarms once they are told they are faulty. The guidance on the positioning of alarms and the type of carbon monoxide alarms installed will also be reviewed and may be brought in line with BS EN 50292 and BS EN 50291. These standards show that the alarms have been extensively tested to ensure their quality including sensor reaction times, minimum alarm sound levels and stability over their working life. However, as fire safety guidance continues to evolve at a rapid pace, housing providers should not wait for further guidance changes to reinforce their duty of care. They can demonstrate best practice through the installation of alarms that meet an LD1 category, the highest level of domestic protection available. LD1 alarms can future-proof properties from regulatory changes and avoid an average £100 fee per callout to update devices to meet any further new standards. Housing providers should also ensure that any carbon monoxide alarms they purchase are fully certified to the European standard EN 50291-1 and carry a third-party approval mark, such as the BSI Kitemark, to ensure compliance with the latest safety standard. England may look to adopt similar legalisation to Scotland The February 2022 deadline for the new Scottish Tolerable Standard is upon us. The updated standard requires all properties to have an interlinked fire and smoke alarm system. By deploying interlinking alarms with wireless technology, if one alarm is triggered, the remaining alarms and ancillary devices are immediately activated, alerting a person in the property to the unfolding fire as quickly as possible. Under
The Fire Brigades Union lawyer for the inquiry has placed central importance on the “agenda of deregulation, privatisation and marketisation” as causing the disaster. Martin Seaward said that an agenda “which encouraged companies to behave recklessly towards building safety” was “actively and, regrettably, deliberately created by central government”. The comments were made as part of the opening statements for Module 6 of Phase 2 of the inquiry, which is set to focus on government. Seaward said that this agenda of deregulation, privatisation and marketisation had been in place for “more than four decades”, across multiple governments, and had “predictably… degraded public services such as building control and fire and rescue services, thereby [weakening] enforcement of these regimes, and led to the abolition of national bodies, ambiguity and confusion in the guidance which has been left unclarified, a culture of complacency created towards fire safety, both during and after building works, and private companies being enabled to put profit over people”. He stated that, in turn, these factors “contributed to the systemic failure of the building and fire safety regimes, thereby enabling the installation of cheap and dangerous rainscreen cladding systems all over the UK, including at Grenfell Tower”. Seaward specifically named the evolution of building safety regulation “Approved Document B [ADB] with ever greater complexity and flexibility, bringing concomitant ambiguity and scope for manipulation” as an issue here, with confusion around the ADB being “ruthlessly exploited by manufacturing companies for their own commercial self-interest” according to Seaward. He also pointed to the introduction of the Building Regulations 1985, which “replaced the previously detailed technical and prescriptive regulations, covering at least 300 pages, with ‘functional requirements’ covering just 25 pages, supplemented by guidance in the ADB”. This introduction of “functional” requirements was described by Seaward as a “major change”, which brought with it “significant flexibility” that in turn “could be and was exploited by some in the construction industry”. Seaward also noted that after the Lakanal House fire, a 2009 fire in which six people died, none of the coroner’s “recommendations were implemented either effectively or at all either by Lord Pickles [Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government when the recommendations were made], his successors or anyone else in government” – which Seaward said was “the consequence of the government’s deregulatory agenda”. The recommendations included ones relating to “stay put” guidance, guidance on high-rise firefighting, and sprinklers. For more information, comment and interview contact Ben Duncan-Duggal on ben.duncan-duggal@fbu.org.uk and 07825 635224.
A recent blog written by the Department for Education (DfE) highlighted some key points about fire safety in schools. While the article stressed the importance of ensuring all students and staff are safe at school, the author made some interesting claims which were misleading and need clarification. As we head towards the long-awaited revised Building Bulletin 100: Design for Safety in Schools, it begs the question as to why the government is looking to make a backwards step towards fire safety and not require sprinklers in all schools? The Department of Education blog post made two interesting claims, firstly that “Fires in schools are very rare and fewer than 1 in 1,000 school buildings are damaged by fire each year”. In the second statement, it said that ‘Home Office Data showing there are fewer than 500 school fires per year, with 90% of fires limited to one room or causing no damage.” So just how accurate are these figures? In the first statement, let’s look at how many fires in school premises cause damage. Using the fire incident data presented in the publicly available dataset there were 5,120 fires over the 10-year period 2010/11 to 2019/20 in schools reported to be Usually Occupied or Under Construction. Looking at the fires where the reported “Total Damage Extent” is anything other than zero square metres, there are 3,743 incidents. This would lead to an average of 374 fire incidents each year where fire damage is reported. How many school buildings? Based on the first statement, this would mean there are over 350,000 school buildings in the English Schools Estate. There does not appear to be any publicly figures published on the number of school buildings. An article from the Construction index talks to 70,000 school buildings. This aligns to the government report on the condition of schools[1]. Although this report refers to “teaching blocks” to highlight that it collected data on 22,031 schools, comprising 63,942 teaching blocks. Based on these figures it is hard to determine that there are over 100,000 buildings let alone 350,000 buildings in the English school estate. Therefore, without a clearer explanation of how they calculated this I cannot find figures to support the first statement. How many fires in schools are reported as not spreading beyond the room of origin? As noted above, there are 5,120 fire incidents recorded in the period of 2010/2011 to 2019/20. Fire impact is recorded based on the observation of the spread of fire in square metres of damage and based on a description of how much of the building is impacted. Looking at those latter descriptors for fire incidents, they indicate 4,600 incidents as not spreading beyond the room of origin. This would be 89.8% of incidents. Based on these figures the second statement is based on the fire incident data. However, having said this the room of origin could be rather bigger than one imagined. It is surprising to note that at least 5% of these incidents reported as being limited to the room of origin cause damage to an area greater than an average classroom area of 50 square metres. Impact of school fires The article states that fires in schools are rare but I cannot find evidence that convinces me of that. It doesn’t talk about the impact of a fire on a child’s education and the ripple effect. Fifteen days of a school term is 5% of a child’s learning lost for that academic year. The government acknowledges that missing lessons has an impact on attainment at key stages. They track attendance and have commissioned reports, which confirm the harmful impact. Indeed, fines of between £60 to £120 can be levied for a child missing a single day of education. The disruption caused by school fires will adversely affect the results of students, and the government’s own statistics confirm this. The BSA has always highlighted that BB100 sets the right expectations around the protection of schools and the continuity of education. It sets an expectation that the school should be fully functional within 24 hours of a fire, apart from the room where the fire occurred. The BSA wants the government to explicitly maintain these objectives and enhance the “sprinkler expectation” in the revised BB100 so that fewer schools are damaged and destroyed by fire. Fewer than one-in-six new schools have been built with a sprinkler system installed. It is time we changed that. 1Condition of School Buildings Survey – Key findings – May 2021, Department of Education
